The Pulpit Commentary — Joshua — Section 37

far too late for a trifling concession of this kind to do much towards soothing o.ngry and ambitious Ephraimites. It might even irritate them by flaunting a pomp before them which they knew was to be paid for by oppressive tnxation : o.nd Reho- boam was the last king of Judah who visited Shechem as part of his own dominion; the last also who, haYing ventured so far, returned home unmolested. The history of the kingdom of Israel is mainly the history of the tribe of Ephmim ; and some of the prophets call attention to this fact by calling the kingdom not "Israel," or "Jacob," or even "Joseph," but simply Ephraim (Hosea iv. 17; v. 3-14, &c. ; Isa. vii. 2-17; ix. 9, 21, &c.; Zech. ix. 10, 13). "The ten tribes" was a geogmphical rather than a political expression. Of the northern tribes it still remained true that they "dwelt among the Cano.an:ites" (Judges i. 32, 33), rather than the Canaanites among them ; and the tribes east of Jordan remained, as before, very much cut off from their brethren. Simeon and Dan gro.vitated towarus the kingdom of Judah, together with the greater po.rt of Benjamin; so that the kingdom of Israel is mainly the lot of Joseph; i.e., Ephraim and Man• asseh. This fact must be borne in mind in considering the nature of the disrup- tion. Here, as so often, we are in danger of confounding occasions with causes. It was not the ambition or ability of Jeroboam, it was not the task-work o.nd taxation of Solomon, it was not the folly of Rehoboam, which were the causes of the rupture. All these things combined made a very favourable opportunity for it: but the real causes lay deeper; viz., in the ambition of Ephraim stimulated by its undoubted advantages e.nd its jealousy of Judah, a jealousy of 400 years standing. The kingdom of Israel had a grand opportunity of justifying the secession. It nught resolutely have set to work to avoid and to remedy the grievous errors which had disfigured the latter part of the reign of Solomon. The fatal nustake consisted in supposing that these could be avoided by mere severance from the house of Dand, and that no remedywas needed. Had Jeroboam and his successors honestly laboured to abolish idolatry, to moderate taxation, and to strengthen the frontier, they would have retained the alliance of the prophets, the most powerful moral force of the age, and would have won the respect and lasting affection of the tribes. But they cared for their own dynasty much more than for the true religion, and to surpass Judah much more than to put down and thrust back the heathen, Thus even in the first period (from Jeroboam to Ahab, n.c. 976-900), which is one of hostility between two kingdoms, although Israel gains considerable advantages over Judah, yet what advance is made is wholly in the southern kingdom, while the northern simply goes back. Jeroboam, in order to make the break with the capital of J nd ah as de~ided as possible, made a clean sweep of all that could remind his subjects of the glory of David and Solomon, and with it of a large portion of the existing civilisation. Thus his kingdom was at once sent back to the rudeness of the age of Saul; and J,efore long was plunged in the anarchy and consequent weakness which had distinguished the age of the Judges. Hence in the kingdom of Israel there seems to be nothing to compensate for the evil of division. For the E:vil of division in an empire is by no means necessarily unmixed. Sometimes the several portions develope all the more healthily for being independent, if only they have sufficient internal force and sufficient scope for action. The kingdom of Israel was deficient in both ; and the force which it possessed was misdirected, so that what scope it had was thrown away. In the kingdom of Judah the schism was by no means all loss, although the  JOSHUA TO NEHEMIAH. xliii