The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 96

HOMILETICS. Vere. 7-12 compared with eh. xvi. 81 and eh. xvili. 4. Tyre and Israel-a lesson on personal influence. Twice in the history of Israel were its relations with the neighbouring kingdom of Tyre close and intimate. Twice did the Phceni- cian race exercise an important influence on the Hebrew people. In the days of Solomon the subjects of Hiram furnished men and materials to build a hollBe to the name of the Lord. The Phcenicians were not only idolaters, but they belonged to the accursed races of Canaan, yet we see them here assisting the holy people, and furthering the interests of the true religion. But in the days of Ahab these relations were reversed. Then the kingdom of Ethbaal furnished Israel with a princess who destroyed the prophets of the Lord and sought to exterminate the religion of which the temple was the shrine and centre. In the first case, that is to say, we see Israel influencing Tyre for good; we hear from the lips of the Tyrian king an acknow- ledgment of the goodness of the Hebrew God ; we see the two races combining to bring glory to God and to diffuse the blessings of peace and civifusation among-et men. In the second case, we see Tyre influencing Israel for evil. No longer do the skilled artificers of Zidon prepare timber and stones for the Lord's house, but the prophets and votaries of Phcenician deities would fain break down the carved work thereof with axes and hammers. So fe.r from ree.ring a sanctuary to Jehovah, they would root up His worship aud enthrone a foul idol in the place of the Divine Presence. Such have been at different times the relations of Tyre and Bidon to the chosen race and the true religion. Now why was this fatal difference? Why was the influence in one age so whole- some, in another so baleful ? It may be instructive to mark the causes of this change. But observe, first-- I. IT WAS NOT THAT THE PBCENIOUN 0REED WAS CHANGED. In its essential fea- tures that was the BOJile B.C. 1000 (temp. Solomon) and B.o. 900 (temp. Ahab). It was always idolatroUB, always immoral, oJwo.ys an infamous cultus of the reproduc- tive powers. The gods of Hiram were the gods of EthbaoJ, and the rites of the latter age were also the rites of the former. II. IT WAB NOT THAT THE LAW OF THE LORD WAS CHANGED, The idolatry which it forbade at the first period, it forbade at the seoond. It never tolerated n. rival religion; it always condemned the PhCBnioian superstition, That is, semper eadem. III. IT WAS NOT THAT HIRAM WAB A PROSELYTE, This was the beliet of the divines of a past age, but there is no evidence in its favour. We see then that it was no change in either of the religious systems. No; it was a, change of persona made this difference. It was brought about by the per- sonal influence of three or four kings-of Solomon, Jeroboam, Omri, Ahab. But before we trace the influence they respectively exercised, observ&-- l. TBE WBOLES01'4E RELATIONS BETWEEN HIRAM AND SOLOMON, BETWEEN TYRE AN»  90 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. v. 1-18,