Solomon's Chariots

1

face of.

and Horses.

twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem. (27) And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore trees that are in the vale, for abundance.

9.28.

(28) 63 And Solomon had horses brought

sea," moreover, unless otherwise determined by the context, would most likely mean the Great, or Mediterranean Sea; and in 2 Chron. ix. 21 (as also afterwards, in 2 Chron. xx. 36) it is expressly said that the fleet "went to Tarshish." But the difficulty of this view lies in this-that the imports of the fleet, except the silver (which, indeed, is chiefly dwelt upon), point to an Eastern, and probably an Indian origin. Not only do the "peacocks" expressly indicate India, which may be called their native country; but of the names used, koph, for "ape," is not a Hebrew word, but closely resembles the Sanscrit kapi; and tukki, for "peacock," is similarly a foreign word, closely resembling the Tamil toka. (If the ordinary reading, shen habbim, for "ivory," stands, this, which is an unusual word for ivory (generally simply shen, "a tooth"), bears resemblance again in its second member to ibha, the Sanscrit name for "elephant." But it is generally thought that the correction, shen habnim, "ivory [and] ebony," should be accepted, especially as we find those two words used together in Ezek. xxviii. 15.) The only solution of this serious difficulty seems to be the supposition of a circumnavigation of Africa by fleets from Tyre to Ezion-geber, touching in Africa and India. This view also accounts for the emphatic mention of the "three years'" voyage, which could not be necessary for going only to Tartessus and its neighbourhood. There is, indeed, something startling in the idea of so daring an enterprise in this early age. But there is a well-known passage in Herodotus (Book iv. 42) which records exactly such a voyage in the days of Pharaoh-Necho, not apparently as a new thingto say nothing of the celebrated record of the Periplus of Hanno; and it seems clear that the Tyrian seamanship and maritime enterprise were at their height in the days of Solomon.

(23-25) All the kings.-These verses indicate the character of the empire of Solomon, as a loosely-compacted group of tributary states round the dominant kingdom of Israel, kept to their allegiance mainly by the ascendency of his personal wisdom and ability, partly by the ties of commercial intercourse and the attractions of his wealth and splendour, and to some degree (though in his case to a less extent than usual) by an imposing military force. It rose rapidly in the comparative abeyance of the great neighbouring empires of Egypt and Assyria, and fell as rapidly on the death of Solomon and the disruption of the kingdom. In the grand description of it in Ps. lxxii., we observe that while its wealth and prosperity are painted in bright colours, the chief stress is laid on its moral greatness, as a kingdom of righteousness and peace: "All kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth He shall judge thy people with righteousness,

merchants received the linen yarn at a

and thy poor with judgment." Here, with the same general idea, but with a characteristic difference of expression, the chief emphasis is laid on the wisdom of Solomon, acknowledged as the gift of God (see Note on chap. iv. 29), and being a moral and religious at least as much as an intellectual power. In this higher character it was the type of the kingdom of the true Son of David. In this, rather than in wealth and power, lay its true glory; and the falling away from this in the later days of Solomon brought at once decay and ruin.

(26) Gathered together chariots. See above, chap. iv. 36. This gathering of chariots-the sign of military conquest and extended empire-is evidently noticed here in connection with the growth of commerce and wealth, as one of the powers which held Solomon's kingdom together. Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, 4), in mentioning them, gives a vivid description of the use of these chariots and horsemen for progresses of royal magnificence and pleasure. But their chief use was, no doubt, military. The " chariot cities" would be the fortified posts, in the various parts of Solomon's own dominions and in the tributary countries.

39

(27) Made silver . . . as stones.-This influx of wealth is specially noted as enriching Jerusalem, probably without preventing the imposition of heavy burdens on the provinces. Hence the division of interest and allegiance manifested at the accession of Rehoboam. In the earlier years of the reign its prosperity is described as extending to all "Judah and Israel (chap. iv. 20). But the wealth gathered by tribute, and by a commerce entirely in the hands of the king, would enrich only the Court and the capital; and much Oriental history, both ancient and modern, shows that such enrichment might leave the general population impoverished and oppressed.

(28) Linen yarn.-The introduction of this seems to be an error. If the reading of the Hebrew text is to stand, the sense appears to be, " And Solomon's horses were brought from Egypt; a troop of the king's merchants obtained a troop (of horses) at a fixed price." The horses were brought up (that is) in caravans from the plains of Egypt, where they abounded (see Gen. xlvii. 17; Exod. ix. 3, xiv. 9; Deut. xvii. 17; Isa. xxxi. 1, xxxvi. 9), although from their not being represented on the monuments before the eighteenth dynasty it is thought they were introduced from abroad, perhaps by the Hyksos, or shepherd kings. But the LXX. has a remarkable various reading "and from Tekoa" (from which the Vulg. et de Coa, probably comes), according to which the passage runs very simply: And Solomon's horses were brought from Egypt; and from Tekoa the king's merchants," &c. Tekoa lay on the hills to the east of Hebron, not far from Bethlehem, and might well be an emporium for caravans from

66

hand.

and Concubines.

Egypt. The parallel passages of 2 Chron. i. 16, 17, ix. 28, give us no help, for the former is exactly the same as this, and the latter runs thus: "And they brought unto Solomon horses out of Egypt and out of all lands."

(29) A chariot.-This is the chariot and its team of two or three horses; the "horse" is the charger. The price (though so far considerable as to indicate a large expenditure on the whole) shows that the supply was large, and the commerce regular.

The kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Syria-evidently allies or tributaries of Solomon, who were allowed, or compelled, to purchase their horses and chariots through his merchants. Of all the earlier inhabitants of Palestine the Hittites alone are mentioned as having existed in power after the conquest (as here and in 2 Kings vii. 6); and this statement is curiously confirmed by both Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions, describing a powerful confederacy of Hittites in the valley of the Orontes in Syria, not far from Phoenicia, with whom both empires waged war. The possession of horses and chariots by the northern confederacy round Hazor is especially noted in the history of the Conquest (Josh. xi. 4—6).

XI.

The historical order in this chapter is curiously broken. (a) In verses 1-13 we have a notice of the polygamy and idolatry of Solomon, and the prediction of the transference of the kingdom to his servant; (b) This reference to Jeroboam suggests a brief record of the rising up of "adversaries" to Solomon, Hadad and Rezon, as well as Jeroboam himself, which belongs to the earlier times of Solomon's reign (verses 14-40). (c) After this digression there is the formal notice of Solomon's death and burial (verses 41-43).

66

(1-8) The defection of Solomon is distinctly traced to his polygamy, contracting numerous marriages with strange women." Polygamy is also attributed to David (see 2 Sam. iii. 2-5; xv. 16), marking perhaps the characteristic temperament of voluptuousness, which seduced him into his great sin; but it was carried out by Solomon on a scale corresponding to the magnificence of his kingdom, and probably had in his case the political object of alliance with neighbouring or tributary kings. We find it inherited by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 18-21), and it probably became in different degrees the practice of succeeding kings. Hitherto, while polygamy, as everywhere in the East, had to some degree existed in Israel from patriarchal times, yet it must have been checked by the marriage regulations of the Law. Nor had there yet been the royal magnificence and wealth, under which alone it attains to full

said unto the children of Israel, 'Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. (3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines and his wives turned away his heart. (+) For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and

:

development. We have some traces of it in the households of some of the Judges: Gideon (Judg. viii. 30), Jair (Judg. x. 4), Ibzan and Abdon (Judg. xii. 9, 14). Now, however, it became, in spite of the prohibition of the Law (Deut. xvii. 17), a recognised element of royal self-indulgence-such as is described in Eccl. ii. 7, 8, and is perhaps traceable even through the beauty of the Song of Solomon. In itself, even without any incidental consequences, it must necessarily be a demoralising power, as sinning against the primeval ordinance of God, and robbing natural relations of their true purity and sacredness. But in actual fact it sinned still more by involving forbidden marriages with idolatrous races, with the often-predicted effect of declension into idolatry.

(1) Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites.-The first three of these races were kindred to Israel and of the stock of Abraham, and were now among the subjects of Solomon; the last two were of the old Canaanitish stock, and were now inferior allies. To the last alone properly attached the prohibition of the Law (Exod. xxxiv. 12-16; Deut. vii. 3, 4); but the reason on which that prohibition was grounded was now equally applicable to the others; for they also had fallen into the worship of false gods. Hence the extension of it to them, recognised by the Jews after the captivity (Ezra ix. 2, 11, 12; Neh. xiii. 23-29).

It is to be noted that the marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh is apparently distinguished from these connections, which are so greatly censured, and that there is no mention of the introduction of any Egyptian idolatry.

(3) Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.-The harem of an Eastern king is simply an adjunct of his magnificence, and the relation of the wives to him little more than nominal. (Comp. Esth. ii. 14.) Nor does the statement here made necessarily imply that at any one time the whole number existed. Still, the numbers here given, though found also in the LXX. and in Josephus, are not only extraordinarily large, but excessive in comparison with the "threescore queens and fourscore concubines" of Cant. vi. 8, and disproportionate in the relative number of the superior and inferior wives. It is possible that, in relation to the former, at any rate, the text may be corrupt, though the corruption must be of ancient date. (4) When Solomon was old. It is clearly implied that the evil influence belonged to the time of senile feebleness, possibly the premature result of a life of indulgence; for he could not have been very old, if he was "but a child" at the time of his accession. But, as it is not at all likely that Solomon forsook the worship of God (see verses 5, 6, and ix. 25), it would seem

that his idolatry was rather the inclination to an eclectic adoption of various forms of faith and worship, as simply various phases of reverence to the One Supreme Power, each having its own peculiar significance and beauty. Such a spirit, holding itself superior to the old laws and principles of the faith of Israel, was the natural fruit of an overweening confidence in his own wisdom-the philosophic spirit, “holding no creed, but contemplating" and condescending to "all." Whatever it may have owed to the baser female influence, so well known in the countries where woman is held a mere toy, it seems likely to have been, still more naturally, the demoralising effect of an absolutely despotic power, of a world-wide fame for wisdom, and of an over-luxurious magnificence. It may have even had a kind of harmony with the weary and hopeless conviction that “all things were vanity:" for there is something of kinship between the belief that all worships are true, and that all worships are false. It may also have been thought good policy to conciliate the subject races, by doing honour to their religions, much as the Roman Empire delighted to do, when faith in its own religion had died out. How absolutely incompatible such a spirit is with the faith in the One only God of Israel, and in itself even more monstrous than avowed devotion to false gods, is indignantly declared by Ezekiel (Ezek. xiv. 3, 4, xx. 39). How utter the practical incongruity, is obvious on the slightest consideration of the contrast between the impure and bloody worship of the false gods, and the lofty spiritual worship of the God of Israel.

(5) Ashtoreth (or, Astarte).—The goddess of the Zidonians, and possibly the Hittites, corresponding to Baal, the great Tyrian god, and representing the recep tive and productive, as Baal the active and originative, power in Nature. As usual in all phases of Natureworship, Ashtoreth is variously represented, sometimes by the moon, sometimes by the planet Venus (like the Assyrian Ishtar, which seems a form of the same name) -in either case regarded as "the queen of heaven." (See Jer. xliv. 17, 25). There seems, indeed, some reason to believe that the name itself is derived from a root which is found both in Syriac and Persian, and which became aster in the Greek and astrum in Latin, and has thence passed into modern European languages, signifying a "star," or luminary of heaven. With this agrees the ancient name, Ashteroth-Karnaîm (or, "the horned Ashteroth") of a city in Bashan (Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. i. 4; Josh. xiii. 12). This place is the first in which the name Ashtoreth is used in the singular number, and expressly limited to the "goddess of the Zidonians." In the earlier history we hear not unfrequently of the worship of the Ashtaroth," that is, of the "Ashtoreths," found with the like plural Baalim, as prevalent in Canaan, and adopted by Israel in evil times (see Judges ii. 13, x. 6; 1 Sam. vii. 3, xii. 10, xxxi. 10); and the worship of the Asherah (rendered groves in the Authorised version), may perhaps refer to emblems of Astarte. In these cases, however, it seems not unlikely that the phrase, "Baalim and Ashtaroth," may be used generally of the gods and

66

66

goddesses of various kinds of idolatry. The worship of the Tyrian Ashtoreth, as might be supposed from the idea which she was supposed to represent, was one of chartered license and impurity.

Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites. -The name Milcom (like the Malcham of Jer. xlix. 1, 3) is probably only a variety of the well-known Molech, which is actually used for it in verse 7. The name "Molech" (though here connected expressly with the Ammonite idolatry) is a general title, signifying only "king" (as Baal signifies "lord "), and might be applied to the supreme god of any idolatrous system. Thus the worship of Molech," with its horrible sacrifice of children "passing through the fire," is forbidden in Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2, evidently as prevailing among the Canaanite races (comp. Ps. cvi. 37, 38). Again, we know historically that similar sacrifice of children, by the same horrible rite, was practised by the Carthaginians in times of great national calamity-the god being in that case identified with Saturn, the star of malign influence. By comparison of Jer. vii. 31, xix. 5, 6, it is very evident that this human sacrifice to Molech is also called "a burnt-offering to Baal;" and if Molech was the "fire-god," and Baal the "sun-god," the two deities might easily be regarded as cognate, if not identical. It is notable that, in this place, while Ashtoreth is mentioned, there is no reference to any worship of the Phoenician Baal as such; possibly the Ammonite Molech-worship may have occupied its place. In any case, as the worship of Ashtoreth was stained with impurity, so the Molech-worship was marked by the other foul pollution of the sacrifice of human blood.

66

Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites. -The name Chemosh probably means "the Conqueror," or Subjugator," and indicates a god of battles. He is again and again described as the god of the Moabites, who are called "the people of Chemosh" (see Num. xxi. 29; Jer. xlviii. 7, 13, 46); and the Moabite Stone speaks of the slain in war as an offering to Chemosh, and even refers to a deity, "Ashtar-Chemosh," which looks like a conjunction of Chemosh, like Baal, with Ashtoreth. In Judg. xi. 24, Jephthah refers to Chemosh as the god of the Ammonite king, an expression which may indicate a temporary supremacy of Moab over Ammon at that time, through which the name "Chemosh" superseded the name Milcom" as descriptive of the Supreme Power. In the history, moreover, of the Moabite war against Jehoram (2 Kings iii. 26, 27) it seems that to Chemosh, as to Molech, human sacrifice was offered.

66

Probably, in actual practice the various worships of the Tyrians and Canaanites, the Ammonites and the Moabites might run into each other. Unlike the awful and exclusive reverence to the Lord Jehovah, the devotion of polytheistic systems readily welcomes strange gods into its Pantheon. Polytheism is also apt to pass into what has been called " Henotheism,” in which, of many gods each is for the moment worshipped, as if he stood alone, and concentrated in himself the whole attributes of deity. The generality and

tion of the children of Ammon. (8) And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

b ch. 6. 12.

Hadad the Edomite.

David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. (13) Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.

d

similarity of meaning in the names, Baal ("lord "), Molech ("king"), and Chemosh (" conqueror"), seem to point in this direction. Still, these worships are described as taking, in Jerusalem, distinct forms and habitations, which continued till the days of Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 13), no doubt disused and condemned in days of religious faithfulness, such as those of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah, but revived, and associated with newer idolatries, in days of apostasy.

(7) On the hill that is before Jerusalem.— evidently on the Mount of Olives (part of which still traditionally bears the name of the "Mount of Offence"), facing and rivalling the Temple on Mount Moriah. Tophet, the place of actual sacrifice to Molech, was "in the valley of the son of Hinnom " (2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 31), which (see Jer. xix. 2) was east or south-east of the city, and would lie not far from the foot of the mountain.

(8) Which had appeared unto him twice.(See chap. iii. 5; ix. 2.) Stress is laid on these direct visions of the Lord to Solomon, as contrasted with the usual indirect revelation through the prophets, and so carrying with them peculiar privilege and responsibility.

(12, 13) For David my servant's sake-that is, evidently, in order to fulfil the promise to David. By the postponement of the chastisement, the blessing promised to his son personally would be still preserved; by the retaining of the kingdom, though shorn of its splendour, and limited to Judah, the larger and more important promise, the continuance of the family of David till the coming of the Messiah, would be fulfilled. The " one tribe" is, of course, Judah, with which Benjamin was indissolubly united by the very position of the capital on its frontier. This is curiously indicated in verses 31, 32, where "ten tribes" are given to Jeroboam, and the remainder out of the twelve is still called "one tribe."

(14-25) The events recorded in this section belong, at least in part, to the early years of the reign of Solomon, when the deaths of the warlike David and Joab. and the accession of a mere youth of avowedly peaceful character, may have naturally encouraged insurrection against the dominion of Israel. They are, no doubt, re

ferred to in this place in connection with the prophecy just recorded, and the notice of Jeroboam's earlier career which it suggests. But it is implied in the case of Hadad, as it is expressly declared in the case of Rezon, that their resistance continued through all Solomon's reign. They were not, therefore, crushed, even in the days of his greatness, although then probably reduced to practical insignificance; they seem to have become formidable again during his declining

years.

(14) Hadad the Edomite.-The name (or rather, title) Hadad (with the kindred names Hadar, Hadadezer or Hadarezer, and Benhadad) is most frequently found as a designation of the kings of Syria. Here, however, as also in Gen. xxxvi. 35, 1 Chron. i. 46, 50, it is given to members of the royal family of Edom. According to ancient authorities, it is a Syriac title of the sun-in this respect like the more celebrated title Pharaoh-assumed by the king, either as indicating descent from the sun-god, or simply as an appellation of splendour and majesty. The Hadad here mentioned seems to have been the last scion of the royal house, escaping alone, as a child, from the slaughter of his kindred and people.

(15) The war here described is briefly noted, with some differences of detail, in 2 Sam. viii. 12-14, 1 Chron. xviii. 11-13, and Ps. lx. (title and verse 8). It is there closely connected with the great struggle with the Syrians, and the victory is ascribed in one record to Joab, in the other to Abishai. Here David himself is described as taking part in the war-perhaps completing the conquest, as in the war with Ammon, after it had been successfully begun by Joab (2 Sam. xii. 26-31). (Instead of "David was in Edom," the LXX. and other versions read "David destroyed Edom," by a slight variation of the Hebrew text.) The war was evidently one of ruthless extermination of 'every male," except those who fled the country, or found refuge in its rocky fastnesses, and was carried on by systematic ravage under the command of Joab. How it was provoked we do not know; for we have no previous notice of Edom since the time of the Exodus, except a reference to war against it in the days of Saul (1 Sam. xiv. 47).