ISRAEL
694
ISRAEL
tinguished from priests, Levites, and other ministers (Ezra vi, 16; ix, 1; x, 25; Neh. xi, 3, etc.).— Smith. The twelve tribes of Israel ever formed the ideal repre- sentation of the whole stock (1 Kings xviii, 30, 31 ; Ezra vi, 17 ; .Jer. xxxi, 1, etc.). Hence also in the New Test. " Israel" is applied (as in No. 2 abov.e) to the true peo- ple of God, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin (Rom. ix, 6 ; Gal. vi, 10, etc.), being, in fact, comprehensive of the entire Church of the redeemed.— Fairbairn. See Jews.
ISRAEL, KiNGDOJr of. The name Israel (q. v.), ■which at first had been the national designation of the twelve tribes collectively (Exod. iii, IG, etc.), was, on the di\-ision of the monarchy, applied to the northern king- dom (a usage, however, not strictly observed, as in 2 Chron. xii, 6), in contradistinction to the other portion, •which was termed the kingdom of Jiidah. This limita- tion of the name Israel to certain tribes, at the head of which was that of Ephraim, which, accordingly, in some of the prophetical writings, as e. g. Isa. xvii, 13 ; Hos. iv, 17, gives its own name to the northern kingdom, is dis- cernible even at so early a period as the commencement of the reign of Saul, and affords evidence of the exist- ence of some of the causes which eventually led to the schism of the nation. It indicated the existence of a rivalry, which needed only time and favorable circum- stances to ripen into the revolt witnessed after the death of S >lomon.
I. Causes of the Division. — The prophet Abijah, who had been commissioned to announce to Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, the transference to him of the greater part of the kingdom of Solomon, declared it to be the pun- ishment of disobedience to the divine law, and particu- larly of the idolatrj- so largely promoted by Solomon (1 Kings xi, 31-3.5). But while this revolt from the house of Daviil is to-be thus viewed in its directly penal char- acter, or as a divine retribution, this does not preclude an inquiry into those sacred causes, political and other-
first establishment of the monarchy in the person of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, the Ephraimites, with the other northern tribes with whom they were associ- ated, silently acquiesced, they refused for seven years to submit to his successor of the tribe of Judah (2 Sam. ii, 9-11), anil even after their submission they showed a disposition on any favorable opportunity to raise the cry of revolt : '• To your tents, O Israel" (2 Sam. xx, 1). It was this early, long-continued, and deep-rooted feeling, strengthened and embittered by the schism, though not concurring with it, that gave point to the language in which Isaiah predicted the blessed times of Jlessiah : " The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adver- saries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not enxy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim'' (Isa. xi, 13). Indeed, for more than 400 years, from the time that Joshua was the leader of the Israelitish hosts, Ephraim, with the dependent tribes of Manasseh and Benjamin, may be said to have exercised undisputed pre-eminence till the accession of David. Accordingly it is not sur- prising that such a people would not readily submit to an arrangement which, though declared to be of di- vine appointment, should place them in a subordinate condition, as when God " refused the tabernacle of Jo- se]5h, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, even the jMount Zion which he loved" (Psa. Ixxviii, 67, 68). See Ephkaim.
There were thus, indeed, two powerful elements tend- ing to break up the national unity. In addition to the long-continued and growing jealousy on the part of the Ephraimites to the tribe of Judah, another cause of dis- satisfaction to the dynasty of David in particular was the arrangement just referred to, which consisted in the removal of the civil, and more particularly the eccle- siastical government, to Jerusalem. The Mosaic ordi- nances were in themselves exceedingly onerous, and this must have been more especially felt bj' such as were resident at a distance from the sanctuan', as it en-
wise, to which this very important revolution in Israel- ! tailed upon them long journeys, not only when attend- -'ish history is clearly referable. Such an inquiry, in- j ing the stated festivals, but also on numerous other oc-
deed, will make it evident how human passions and jeal ousies were made subservient to the divine purpose.
Prophecy had early assigned a pre-eminent place to two of the sons of Jacob— Judah and Joseph— as the founders of tribes. In the blessing pronounced upon his sons i)y the dying patriarch, Joseph had the birth- right conferred upon him, and was promised in his son Ephraim a numerous progeny ; while to Judah promise was made, among other blessings, of rule or dominion over his brethren-" thy father's children shall bow down before thee" (Gen. xlviii, 19, 22; xlix, 8, 26; comp. 1 Chron. V, 1, 2). These blessings were repeated and en- larged in the blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii, 7, 17). The pre-eminence thus prophetically assigned to these two tribes received a partial verification in the fact that at the exodus their numbers were nearly equal, and far in excess of those of the other tribes; and further, as be- came their position, they were the first who obtained their territories, which were also assigned them in the very centre of the land. It is unneccss-uy to mlvert to the various other circumstances wliich (dntiihutcd to the growth and aggrandizement of these two trilios, and which, from the position these were thus enabled to ac- quire above the rest, naturally led to their becoming ^heads of jiarties, and, as such, the objects of mutual rival- ry anil conlention. Tiic Ephraimites, indeed, from the very first, gave unmistakable tokens of an exceedingly haughty temper, and preferred most arrogant claims over the other triljcs as regards questions of peace and war. This may be seen in their representation to Gideon of the tribe of Jlanassch (Judg. viii. 1), and in their con- duct towards Jephthah (Judg. xii, 1). Now if this over- bcarmg people resented in the case of tribes so incon- sidcraldc as that of jManasseh what they regarded as a slight, it is easy to conceive how thev must have evcd the proceedings of the tribe of Judah, which was m'ore especially their rival. Hence it was. that while on the