anxiety.165 This we infer, not only from 1 Kings 4:24, but from such a notice as that in 1 Kings 9:26.

But in the extreme northeast, as well as in the far southeast, a dark cloud gathered on the horizon. At the

defeat of Hadadezer by the troops of David (2 Samuel 8:3; 10:18) one of the Syrian captains, Rezon by name,

had "fled from his lord." In the then disorganized state of the country he gradually gathered around him a

band of followers, and ultimately fell back upon Damascus, of which he became king. The sacred text leads

us to infer that, although he probably did not venture on open warfare with Solomon, he cast off the Jewish

suzerainty, and generally "was an adversary" - or, to use the pictorial language of the Bible, "abhorred

Israel."  166

Ill-suppressed enmity in Edom (far southeast), and more active opposit ion and intrigue at Damascus (in the

northeast) - in short, the danger of a combination like that which had so severely taxed the resources of

David, such, then, so far as concerned external politics, were the darkening prospects of Solomon's later

years. But the terms in which Holy Scripture speaks of these events deserve special notice. We are told, that

"Jehovah stirred up" or, rather, "raised up" these adversaries unto Solomon (1 Kings 11:14, 23). The

expression clearly points to Divine Causality in the matter (comp. Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; Judges 2:18; 1

Samuel 2:35; Jeremiah 29:15; Ezra 34:23). Not, indeed, that the ambitious or evil passions of men's hearts are

incited of God, but that while each, in the exercise of his free will, chooses his own course, the LORD

overrules all, so as to serve for the chastisement of sin and the carrying out of His own purposes (comp.

Psalm 2:1, 2; Isaiah 10:1-3).

But yet another and far more serious danger threatened Solomon's throne. Besides "adversaries" without,

elements of dissatisfaction were at work within Palestine, which only needed favoring circumstances to lead

to open revolt. First, there was the old tribal jealousy between Ephraim and Judah. The high destiny foretold

to Ephraim (Genesis 48:17-22; 49:22-26) must have excited hopes which the leadership of Joshua, himself an

Ephraimite (Numbers 13:8), seemed for a time to warrant. Commanding, perhaps, the most important territorial

position in the land, Ephraim claimed a dominating power over the tribes in the days of Gideon and of

Jephthah (Judges 8:1; 12:1). In fact, one of the successors of these Judges, Abdon, was an Ephraimite

(Judges 12:13). But, besides, Ephraim could boast not only of secular, but of ecclesiastical supremacy since

Shiloh and Kirjath-jearim were within its tribal possession. And had not Samuel, the greatest of the Judges,

the one outstanding personality in the history of a decrepit priesthood, been, though a Levite, yet "from

Mount Ephraim" (1 Samuel 1:1)? Even the authority of Samuel could not secure the undisputed

acknowledgment of Saul, who was only too painfully conscious of the objections which tribal jealousy

would raise to his elevation (1 Samuel 9:21). It needed that glorious God-given victory at Jabesh-Gilead to

hush, under strong religious convictions, those discordant voices, and to unite all Israel in acclamation of

their new king. And yet the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul belonged, was closely allied to that of Ephraim

(Judges 21:19- 23). Again, it was the tribe of Ephraim wh ich mainly upheld the cause of Ishbosheth (2

Samuel 2:9); and though the strong hand of David afterwards kept down all active opposition, no sooner did

his power seem on the wane than "a man of Mount Ephraim" (2 Samuel 20:21) roused the tribal jealousies,

and raised the standard of rebellion against him. And now, with the reign of King Solomon, all hope of tribal

pre-eminence seemed to have passed from Ephraim. There was a new capital for the whole country, and that

in the possession of Judah. The glory of the ancient Sanctuary had also been taken away. Jerusalem was the

ecclesiastical as well as the political capital, and Ephraim had to contribute its wealth and even its forced

labor to promote the schemes, to support the luxury, and to advance the glory of a new monarchy, taken

from, and resident in, Judah!

But, secondly, the burden which the new monarchy imposed on the people must, in the course of time, have

weighed very heavily on them (1 Kings 12:4). The building of a great national Sanctuary was, indeed, an

exceptional work which might enlist the highest and best sympathies, and make the people willing to submit

to any sacrifices. But this was followed by the construction of a magnificent palace, and then by a

succession of architectural undertakings (1 Kings 9:15, 17-19) on an unprecedented scale. However useful

some of these might be, they not only marked an innovation, but involved a continuance of forced labor (1

Kings 4:6; 5:13, 14; 11:28), wholly foreign to the spirit of a free people, and which diverted from their proper