Asher, Naphtali, Gad, Reuben, and (in part) Dan. With respect to the conquests of David, Moab appears to have been attached to the kingdom of Israel (2 Kings iii, 4) ; as much of Syria as remained subject to Solomon (see 1 Kings xi, 24) wotdd j.roljably be claimed by his suc- cessor in the nortlicrn kingdom; and Ammon, though connected with Kehoboam as his mother's native land (2 Chron. xii, 13), and though afterwards tributary to Judah (2 Chron. xxvii, 5), was at one time allied (2 Chron. xx, 1), we know not how closely or how early, with Moab. The sea-coast between Accho and Japho remained in the possession of Israel.
With regard to population, again, the data are even more defective than with respect to territorial extent. According to the uncompleted census taken in the reign of David, about forty years previous to the schism of the king<lom, the figliting men in Israel numbered 800,000, and in Judah 500,000 (2 Sam. xxiv, 9) ; but in 1 Chron. xxi, 5, 6, the numbers are differently stated at 1,100,000 and 470,000 respectively, with the "intimation that Levi and Benjamin were not included (comp. xxvii, 24). As bearing more directly on this jmint. Kiholjo- am raised an army of 180,000 men out of Judah and Benjamin to fight against Jeroboam (1 Kings xii, 21); and again, Ahijah, the son of Kehoboam, with 400,000 men, made war on Jeroboam at the head of an army of 800,000 (2 Chron. xiii, 3). According to the general laws observable in such cases, these numbers may be said to represent an aggregate population of from^^re and a half to six millions, of which about one third, or two millions, may be fairlj' arsigned to the kingdom of Judah at the time of the separation.
Shechem was the first capital of the new kingdom (I Kings xii, 25), venerable for its traditions, and beauti- ful in its situation. Subsequently Tirzah, whose love- liness had fixed the wandering gaze of Sdloiimn (Cant. vi, 4), became the royal residence, if nut tlir capital of Jeroboam (1 Kings xiv, 17) and of his sucrcsscirs (xv, 33; xvi, 8, 17, 23). After the murder of Jeroboam's son, indeed, Baasha seems to have intended to fix his capital at Ramah, as a convenient place for annoying the king of Judah, whom he looked on as his only dan- gerous enemy; but he was forced to renounce this plan (1 Kings iv, 17, 21). Samaria, uniting in itself the qualities of beauty and fertility, and a commanding position, was chosen by Omri (1 Kings xvi, 24), and re- mained the capital of the kingdom until it had gixen the last proof of its strength by sustaining for three years the onset of the hosts of Assyria. Jezreel was probably only a roj'al residence of some of the Israel- itish kings. It may have been in awe of the ancient holiness of Shiloh that Jeroboam forbore to pollute the secluded site of the tabernacle with the golden calves. He chose for the religious capitals of his kingdom Dan, the old home of northern schism, and Bethel, a Benja- mite city not far from Shiloh, and marked out by history and situation as the rival of .Icrusalem.
III. Political and Rdifiioiis J!(l<i1ions of the Kinffdom oflsrael.^Bnt whilst, in extent of territoiy and of pop- idation, and it might be shown also in various other re- spects, the resources of the northern kingdom were at the very least double those of its southern rival, the latter embraced elements of strength which were en- tirely lacking in the other. There was first the geo- graphical position of the kingdom of Israel, whicli ex- posed its northern frontier to invasions on the part of Sj'ria and the Assyrian liosts. But more than this, or any exposure to attack from without, were the dangers to be apprehended from the polity on which the king- dom was founded. Jeroboam's public sanction of idol- atry, and his other interferences with fundamental prin- ciples of the ]\Iosaic law, more especially in the matter of the priesthood, at once alienated from his govern- ment ail who were well affected to that economy, and who were not ready to subordinate their religion to any political considerations. Of such there were not a few within the territories of the new kingdom. The Le-
israp:l
696
ISRAEL
vites in particular fled the kingdom, abandoning their property and possessions : and so did many others be- sides ; " such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice uiito the Lord God of their fathers. So they strengthened the king- dom of .Judali" (2 Chron. xi, 13-1 7). Not only was one great soiu-ce of strength thus at once dried up, but the strongly conservating principles of the law were vio- lently shocked, and the kingdom more than ever ex- posed to the encroachments of the heathenism which extended along its frontier.
One element of weakness in the kingdom of Israel was the number of tribes of which it was composed, more especially after tliey had renounced those princi- ples of the Mosaic law which, while preserving the in- di\-iduality of the tribes, served to bind them together as one people. Among other circumstances unfavora- ble to unity was the want of a capital in which all had a common interest, and with which they were connect- ed by some common tie. This want was by no means compensated by the religious establishments at Bethel and Dan. But it is in respect to theocratic and relig- ious relations that the weakness of the kingdom of Is- rael specially appears. Any sanction which the usur- pation of Jeroboam may have derived at first from the announcement made to him by the prophet Ahijah, and afterwards from the charge given to Rehoboam and the men of Judah not to fight against Israel, because the thing was from the Lord (1 Kings xii, 23), must have been completely taken away by the denunciations of the prophet out of Judah against the altar at Bethel (1 Kings xiii, 1-10), and the subsequent announcements of Ahijah himself to Jeroboam, who failed to fulfil the con- ditions on which the kuigdom was given him (I Kings xiv, 7-lG). The setting up of the worship of the calves, in which may be traced the influence of Jeroboam's resi- dence in Egypt, and the consecrating of priests who could have no moral weight with their fellow-subjects, and were chosen only for their subservience to the royal will, were measures by no means calculated to consoli- date a power from which the divine sanction had been expressly withdrawn. On the contrary, they led, and very speedily, to the alienation of many who" might at the outset have silently acquiesced in" the revolution, even if they had not fidly api>roved of it. The large migration which ensued into Judah of all who were fa- vorable to the former institutions must still further have aggravated the evil, as all vigorous opposition would thenceforth cease to the downward and destructive tend- ency of the anti-theocratic policy. The natural result of the course appears in the fact that the step taken by Jeroboam was never retraced by any of his successors, one after another following the example thus set to them, so that Jeroboam is emphatically and frequently characterized in Scripture as the man " who made Is- rael to sin,'' while his successors are described as follow- ing in '• the sin of Jeroboam."