Solomon evidently desired to render the service in the temple beautiful and impressive, the temple itself the chief and central sanctuary in the land, and Jerusalem not only the royal residence and national capital, but the holy city. He thereby, however, displeased those who disliked changes in religion and preferred the old simjjlicity and rude- ness of worship to innovations. They included probably most of the uncultured tribesmen of the north. The seer Ahijah was at their head. They may have had a considerable amount of truth and reason as well as piety on their side, but not more than the innovators — Solomon, the priests, and all others who were in favour of progress. The changes introduced by Solomon tended to further the sjiiri- tual education of the Jewish people, to suggest to rece[)tive minds among them larger and worthier thoughts of God, and to contribute to the perman- ence and progressiveness of religion in Israel.
16. Alleged Apostastj of Sohmion. — The age of Solomon w,as in the main one of intellectual libera. tion and religious euligiitenment, although to many of his subjects it may have appeared one of scepti-
cism and impiety. That the king abandoned hil faith in J" and became an idolater is dillicult to believe, while it is easy to conceive how the /'«/«« to that ett'ect may have arisen. Solomon built altars for his foreign wives, and allowed them to worship their national gods on earth brought from their native lands and in the language and forms of de- votion Avhich were familiar and sacred to them. He did not allow them to proselytize or to attempt to act the part which was afterwards played by Jezebel ; and it is even very unlikely, seeing that they were all members of his own huuseliold, that he permitted either the cruel or the licentious acts sometimes practised in the worship of certain of their deities. But to Ahijah and his partisans toleration of any worship in Israel except that of J" appeared tantaraoimt to apostasy from J", and the worship of a strange god. They necessarily saw therefore in Solomon's conduct proof that his heart was turned away from J" and given to the foreign gods whom he allowed his wives to worship. They judged of it by a crude and immoral concep- tion of J", while Solomon himself must have seen in it no treason against J", and believed it to be reasonable and right. The religious toleration granted by him to his wives was an almost inevit- able consequence of his policy of alliances with foreign rulers through marriages. There was, however, apparently no opposition given or oflence taken by his subjects either to his polygamy or his marriage with foreign women. They seem to have regarded his multitude of wives complacently as ,a sign of his wealth and grandeur. In his poly- gamy he only followed the example, and probably the advice, of his father. Nor was his oll'ence marriage with foreign wives, altho\igh he is not recorded to have married any of his own subjects. Perhaps few of them would have been considered suitable wives for so great a king, and marriages with them could have had no political advantages. It was his religious toleration per se which was condemned, ami held to imply disloyalty to J" and the worsliiij of other gods.
That he should have been guilty of the apostasy and sin alleged seems incredible and inexplicable on an}- supposition except one, viz. that his mode of life bad left him prematurely worn out both in body and mind, so as to be, even in the fifth decade of his age, in a senile condition, and hardly responsible for his actions. That is little if any- thing more than a sujiposition. '\'et it seems to be hinted at by the author of 1 K ll'-^ who writes as if willing to excuse and yet unwilling to express himself plainly, when telling us of Solomon's 'cleaving in love to many strange women,' and that ' his heart was turned away after strange gods when he teas old ' (say over fifty years of age). The erotic element in the Song of Songs, so far as it refers to Solomon, is also, perhaps, in this con- nexion not to bo overlooked. The apocryphal book Sirach, while otherwise glorifying Solomon in the most generous manner, distinctly singles out for conilemnation his sensuality as ' what stained his honour and polluted his seed, brought wrath on his children, divided Israel, and made Ephraim a rebel kingdom ' (42>=-^). The censure was fully deserved. However numerous ind attractive may have been the gifts and good qualities of Solomon, he had two great faults — self-love and self-indulgence. He was blind to the claims of self-.sacrilice and self-restraint, and hence was no wise man in the highest sense, but merely the wisest fool of his day. His harem may sutlice for proof. If his wives and concubines together really amounted to a thousand women, it would seem to have been the largest of which there is any record in historj It was doubtless mon- strously large, and ' eunuchs ' were among th«
SOLOMOX
SOLOJrO]S^'S SERVANTS
569
attendants in it. Yet Solomon had only one son, and that so', was Kehoboam — ' ample,' as IJen Sira siiys, 'in foolishness and lacking' in under- btandin;,', who by his counsel let loose the people ' (isir 47--'). God's violated law of married love clearly avenged itself on Solomon and condemned his polygamy.