|
|
Many kings ascended the throne of Israel from the time of Saul to the dissolution of both the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. None of these kings, however, obtained the power and prestige that Solomon did. Nearly a thousand years before Solomon, Abraham had been promised that his seed would receive the land of Canaan for their inheritance, including territory as far north as the Euphrates River (see Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:18). But not until Solomon’s time was this promise fully realized. Solomon extended the domain of Israel from the Red Sea on the south to the Euphrates River on the north (see Maps, “The Empires of David and Solomon”). The golden age of Israel, started under King David, continued under Solomon. During the forty years that Solomon ruled as king of Israel, there was peace and unity throughout his vast domain.
At the beginning of his reign, Solomon loved the God of Israel and covenanted with God that he would walk in obedience throughout his administration as king of Israel. Solomon was promised wisdom, riches, honor, and long life if he would continue in righteousness before the Lord. The promise was fulfilled. During his life, Solomon became famous for his wisdom. Great men and women from many nations came to hear him and test his understanding and knowledge. Solomon also acquired great wealth, and there were said to be no kings in all the earth who could compare to him. Under Solomon’s reign Israel reached her greatest point as a nation—honor, wealth, power, and respect were hers because of the administration of her greatest king.
Nevertheless, at the end of Solomon’s reign, Israel became temporally and spiritually bankrupt. Deterioration and strife were everywhere. Within a year of Solomon’s death, the land was divided into two kingdoms, and the course of Israel’s history was permanently altered. What actions or events led the nation from such heights to such depths? You will find the answers in the first book of Kings. As you read, try to identify the events that brought about the decline of Israel.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Kings 1–11. See also 1 Chronicles 22–23; 28–29; 2 Chronicles 1–9 for a parallel account.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
According to the customs of succession, Adonijah could well have been the heir to the throne of David. Adonijah was the fourth son of David (see 2 Samuel 3:4). Two of his older brothers, Amnon and Absalom, were already dead, and a third, Chileab, is not mentioned in the text except for the account of his birth.
David’s old age and feeble condition (see 1 Kings 1:1–4) evidently convinced Adonijah that it was time to show the people that he was the successor to the throne. His actions were thus designed to convince the people of his right and to create a base of popular support that would consolidate his position. He set up a royal processional (see v. 5); sought the support of important people, including Joab, the commander of the military, Abiathar, the high priest, the other princes of the court, and David’s personal staff (see vv. 7, 9); and prepared a great feast (see v. 9). He deliberately excluded those loyal to Solomon as the successor, including Zadok, another important priest; Benaiah, one of the military commanders (perhaps second in command to Joab); the “mighty men” (v. 8), who were probably David’s personal body guards; and the prophet Nathan.
Adonijah’s plan was thwarted, however, when Nathan heard what Adonijah was doing and reported it to Bath-sheba, Solomon’s mother. His warning to her that her life as well as Solomon’s life was in danger (see v. 12) illustrates one of the problems with a monarchical system of government. Because of the competition that typically existed in the royal family itself, the new king often assassinated all his brothers and other possible heirs who might pose any threat to his rule.
Moving swiftly, Bath-sheba and Nathan joined together (see v. 11) to bring Adonijah’s manipulations to the attention of King David. When David learned that Adonijah sought to take the throne, he quickly appointed Solomon as co-regent. They ruled together until David died.
Although only twenty years of age, Solomon, like David and Saul before him, was anointed to his kingship by a rightful priest and by the prophet (see vv. 34, 39). To clearly show the people that Solomon was David’s choice and the Lord’s, David commanded that the inauguration of his co-regent take place immediately. He commanded that Solomon be placed on his (David’s) mule to ride in procession to Gihon in the traditional way that a king made his triumphal entry into a city (see J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, p. 693; compare with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem recorded in Matthew 21:1–11). The people responded joyously and accepted Solomon as their new king (see 1 Kings 1:39–40).
Thus, in one quick and decisive move, David cut off Adonijah’s attempts to usurp the throne, and Solomon was established as king. One can easily imagine why those at Adonijah’s feast were struck with fear and hastened to desert Adonijah’s presence. They were caught in the midst of what bordered on treason against the new king, and they were anxious to disassociate themselves from Adonijah.
Now it was Adonijah’s life that was in danger. Not only was he a potential rival to the throne, but he had been obviously making an open effort to preempt Solomon’s claim. So, as soon as he learned of the enthroning of Solomon, Adonijah fled not to his home, but immediately to the heights of Mount Moriah just above the city of David. Here an altar of sacrifice had been set up by David. The horns of the altar of sacrifice were considered a sanctuary where a person could cling until his case was investigated and tried (see Exodus 21:13–14). There Adonijah waited, hoping for some indication of Solomon’s clemency toward him, which was granted (see 1 Kings 1:50–55; see also Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel [religion 301, 2003], pp. 167, 268 for a detailed explanation of why the horns of the altar were seen as a place of refuge).
The Cherethites were “a people who were settled alongside the Philistines in southern Palestine [see 1 Samuel 30:14; Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:5]. In the reign of David they formed, with the Pelethites, his private bodyguard under the command of Benaiah the son of Jehoida [see 2 Samuel 8:18; 20:23; 1 Chronicles 18:17]. They remained loyal to him through the rebellions of Absalom [see 2 Samuel 15:18] and Sheba [see 2 Samuel 20:7], and were present when Solomon was anointed for kingship [see 1 Kings 1:38, 44].” (J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Cherethites.”)
David charged his son to keep all the commandments of God, to study the law, and to exercise righteous judgment upon the people. Solomon was also instructed concerning some of David’s enemies as well as some of his friends.
First Kings does not record the large assemblage of government administrators and military commanders that David called together when he sensed that his death was near; however, the historic gathering is recorded in 1 Chronicles 28:1–29:24. At this conference David performed four great services: (1) he gained the support of the people for the completion of the temple; (2) he presented a vast treasure for the temple; (3) he publicly turned over to Solomon the plans for the temple and disclosed that they had been given to him by divine revelation; and (4) he succeeded in having Solomon crowned and anointed a second time when the people of every tribe were officially represented and could declare their loyalty.
|
|
|
The traditional tomb of David, king of Israel |
This plea for manhood and strength is a familiar Old Testament theme. It was Moses’ last counsel to Joshua (see Deuteronomy 31:6–7, 23). The Lord gave Joshua the same encouragement (see Joshua 1:5–9). This advice was given to Solomon repeatedly. The courage to obey the law was just as much a part of the plea as to have physical courage.
Joab, out of jealousy and fear of losing his position as commander of the armies of Israel, had murdered Abner (see 2 Samuel 3:27) and Amasa (see 2 Samuel 20:10).
Commentators have noted that “David ought to have punished these two crimes; but when Abner was murdered, he felt himself too weak to visit a man like Joab with the punishment he deserved, as he had only just been anointed king, and consequently he did nothing more than invoke divine retribution upon his head [see 2 Samuel 3:29]. And when Amasa was slain, the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba had crippled the power of David too much, for him to visit the deed with the punishment that was due. But as king of the nation of God, it was not right for him to allow such crimes to pass unpunished: he therefore transferred the punishment, for which he had wanted the requisite power, to his son and successor. . . . ‘Do according to thy wisdom (“mark the proper opportunity of punishing him”—Seb. Schmidt), and let not his grey hair go down into hell (the region of the dead) in peace (i.e. unpunished)’ [1 Kings 1:6]. The punishment of so powerful a man as Joab the commander-in-chief was, required great wisdom, to avoid occasioning a rebellion in the army, which was devoted to him.” (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 3:1:29.)
Barzillai and Shimei both lived at Mahanaim. Shimei, instead of showing kindness to David when he fled from Absalom, threw rocks at him and cursed him (see 2 Samuel 16:5–11). Barzillai, however, showed great kindness to David and those who had fled with him by providing them with food and clothing. David asked Solomon to provide for the family of Barzillai as a payment for his kindness (see 2 Samuel 17:27–29; 19:31–38).
“Amongst Eastern nations the wives and concubines of a deceased or dethroned king were taken by his successor [see 2 Samuel 12:8; 16:21–22]; and so Adonijah’s request for Abishag was regarded as tantamount to a claim on the throne” (Dummelow, Commentary, p. 212).
Solomon knew and understood this law, as 1 Kings 2:22 makes clear. At first it may seem puzzling that Bath-sheba would take Adonijah’s request to Solomon since she almost certainly knew and understood this law. Perhaps she, knowing how Solomon would react, recognized an opportunity to rid Solomon of the threat that Adonijah continued to be to the throne of Israel. Solomon did react quickly, for this was the second time Adonijah had attempted to take the throne by subtlety.
Solomon meant that Adonijah’s request was either treason or a plan to commit treason and was therefore worthy of death. (Note 1 Kings 2:15, which records that Adonijah knew that the Lord had given the throne to Solomon.)
Abiathar and Joab were still conspiring to put Adonijah on the throne (see 1 Kings 2:22). Solomon banished Abiathar from Jerusalem and took from him the office of high priest in Israel. Abiathar was a great-grandson of Eli, who was both priest and judge in Israel, and the last of his descendants to hold a priestly office. This punishment and restriction of Abiathar fulfilled the prophecy announced to Eli by the Lord (see 1 Samuel 2:31–36).
Abiathar probably escaped with the punishment of exile only because Solomon was reluctant to execute a high priest. Joab, however, was a much more dangerous enemy because he had commanded the army. There was no question concerning Joab’s guilt. Because of the murders he had committed, he was indeed worthy of death (see Exodus 21:12–14). Thus, he had no right to claim the sanctuary of the altar, and Solomon was not obligated to honor his claim to sanctuary.
Benaiah succeeded Joab as captain of the host, the top military position in the kingdom under the king.
Continuing to follow the final counsel of his father (see Notes and Commentary on 1 Kings 2:7–8), Solomon now undertook to punish Shimei. At first this punishment may seem vindictive on David’s part and cruel for Solomon to follow through with it, since all Shimei had done was to curse David and throw rocks at him (see 2 Samuel 16:5–11). At that time, however, David’s kingdom was rent by civil war. Shimei’s action was therefore equivalent to treason against the government.
There may have been an additional reason for David’s counsel to Solomon. Shimei was from Bahurim, which was a short distance east of Jerusalem. The Ammonites and Moabites who lived across the River Jordan were traditional enemies of Israel. To have a known enemy of the crown in a city where the Ammonites and Moabites could easily go to conspire with him would have provided future opportunity for treason. This situation may explain David’s counsel.
Solomon’s treatment of Shimei was just and tolerant. He could have had Shimei executed by royal order. Instead, Solomon brought him to Jerusalem and made him swear on oath that he would not cross the Brook Kidron, the eastern boundary of Jerusalem. This restriction lends further support to the idea that Solomon did not want Shimei collaborating with the eastern enemies of Israel.
Three years later, because Shimei violated his oath, Solomon had him executed. Keil and Delitzsch noted that “this punishment was also just. As Solomon had put Shimei’s life in his own hand by imposing upon him confinement in Jerusalem, and Shimei had promised on oath to obey the king’s command, the breach of his oath was a crime for which he had no excuse. There is no force at all in the excuses which some commentators adduce in his favour, founded upon the money which his slaves had cost him, and the wish to recover possession of them, which was a right one in itself. If Shimei had wished to remain faithful to his oath, he might have informed the king of the flight of his slaves, have entreated the king that they might be brought back, and have awaited the king’s decision; but he had no right thus lightly to break the promise given on oath. By the breach of his oath he had forfeited his life. And this is the first thing with which Solomon charges him, without his being able to offer any excuse; and it is not till afterwards that he adduces as a second fact in confirmation of the justice of his procedure, the wickedness that he practised towards his father.” (Commentary, 3:1:27.)
The army was also the police power. Therefore, by virtue of his office as captain of the host, executions were Benaiah’s responsibility. If he were sent, the job was sure to be done.
As long as Israel remained free and under the Lord’s direct influence, they did not have prisons. Criminals were punished by death for specified crimes. Otherwise, they were required to make restitution to the person harmed. Sometimes they were placed under house arrest on their own honor, as was Shimei, or they were banished.
Early in his reign Solomon elected to marry the daughter of the Egyptian pharaoh. Since Israel had imposed its sovereignty throughout the region, Solomon apparently considered it important to neutralize any hostility on the part of Egypt, for Egypt had been accustomed to using Canaan as a base for military operations. Marriages between royal families were often politically motivated; such a marriage was a way of signing a treaty between two countries. Nevertheless, the marriage of Solomon to the daughter of the pharaoh showed a lack of faith in the Lord, who had promised to defend Israel and fight her battles (see Deuteronomy 20:4; Joshua 23:10). Later, this marriage and other marriages to foreign wives proved to be a major factor in the downfall of Israel, for Solomon began worshiping the false gods of these other nations and was condemned by the Lord (see 1 Kings 11:1–9).
The tabernacle built by Moses was at this time located in Gibeon along with the great altar upon which sacrifices had been offered since the days of Moses. That is why Solomon went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices (see 1 Chronicles 21:29; 2 Chronicles 1:2–3).
|
|
|
Cisterns at Gibeon, traditional site of a winepress |
Solomon approached the Lord as a humble, obedient servant, and he was rewarded for his meekness with a wise and understanding heart. Perhaps no other person was ever given a greater gift of wisdom. Solomon was charged to keep the Lord’s commandments and statutes so that the Lord might lengthen his days as king.
There are numerous places in the historical books where David is held up as an example of one who was pleasing in God’s sight. The Prophet Joseph Smith corrected each of those references to show that David was being used by the Lord as an example of what David’s successors should not do. For example, in the Joseph Smith Translation 1 Kings 3:14 reads: “And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes, and my commandments, then I will lengthen thy days, and thou shalt not walk in unrighteousness, as did thy father David.”
In the King James Version, 1 Kings 11:4 records that Solomon’s heart “was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” The Prophet corrected the passage to read that Solomon’s heart “was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father” (JST, 1 Kings 11:4; see also 1 Kings 11:6, 33–34, 38–39; 14:8; 15:3, 5, 11; compare JST).
Solomon’s prayer for an “understanding heart” (1 Kings 3:9) was surely granted, as the incident of the two harlots demonstrates. The brilliance of Solomon’s strategy is seen when one reflects that the woman who was willing to give up the baby rather than see it killed would be the best mother to the child, whether she was the natural mother or not.
“Upon his accession to the throne, Solomon made the first of several administrative changes: he created three new offices in his cabinet. David had governed his new empire almost single-handedly, needing only a commanding general, a chief scribe and a few secretaries. To this basic staff Solomon added Ahishar, who ‘was in charge of the palace.’ He would serve as prime minister, second only to Solomon in power. Adoniram was named the chief of forced labor—for Solomon had a tremendous building program in mind and no way to begin it without a steady supply of workers. Adoniram would supervise both foreign slave laborers (the descendants of those people who had survived the Israelite Conquest) and a newly organized, conscripted labor force of Israelites, who served one out of every three months. In addition, ‘Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers [provincial governors]’ of the 12 districts of Israel.
“Up to now the government of Israel, even under Saul and David, had never been controlled by an ‘administration’ as we know it, but rather by a patriarchal or charismatic leader who ruled largely by personal magnetism and inspiration from the Lord. Such leadership had been necessary to unite the 12 independent and often quarrelsome tribes during the military conquest of Canaan. But now Israel was at peace and her territory was greatly enlarged. The nation sorely needed a more efficient method of government. So Solomon divided Israel into 12 administrative districts, all comparatively equal in population and resources. To accommodate the new territory, the arbitrary divisions ignored the old tribal boundaries, and for all practical purposes the tribal distinctions were abandoned except for temple duties and genealogies.
“Solomon assigned one officer to head each district; all of them were responsible to Azariah. The 12 officers were in charge of raising provisions for the king’s household—each district supplied food for one month of every year. The officers in turn imposed the burden of providing food on the farmers and shepherds, and quite a burden it was. The provision needed for one day by Solomon’s court ‘was thirty cors [188 bushels] of fine flour, and sixty cors [about 370 bushels] of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty pasture-fed cattle, a hundred sheep, besides harts, gazelles [fallow deer], roebucks, and fatted fowl . . . And those offices . . . let nothing be lacking. Barley also and straw for the horses and swift steeds they brought to the place where it was required, each according to his charge.’ And this was only part of the taxation.” (Great People of the Bible and How They Lived, pp. 186–88.)
Such taxation fulfilled the words of the prophet Samuel, who many years before had warned Israel what would happen if they chose to have a king rule over them (see 1 Samuel 8:11–20).
“The meaning of this verse appears to be, that Solomon reigned over all the provinces from the river Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the frontiers of Egypt. The Euphrates was on the east of Solomon’s dominions; the Philistines were westward on the Mediterranean sea; and Egypt was on the south. Solomon had, therefore, as tributaries, the kingdoms of Syria, Damascus, Moab, and Ammon, which lay between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean.” (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:398.)
“The term is applied [in Jeremiah 49:28] to the Arab tribes dwelling at Kedar, and probably describes generally the inhabitants of the Syrian desert” (Dummelow, Commentary, p. 213).
The book of Proverbs contains some of the proverbs of Solomon, though not all that he wrote, and almost certainly not all writings in the present book of Proverbs were written by Solomon.
The Song of Solomon, which the Prophet Joseph Smith said is not an inspired writing (see Song of Solomon 1:1a), is only one of many songs written by Solomon. Also, two of the psalms are attributed to Solomon (see Psalms 72, 127).
The prophet Nathan instructed David that one of his children would build a temple unto God (see 2 Samuel 7:12). So, David spent much time and energy in gathering materials for the temple. When Solomon came to the throne, one of the first things he did was direct his attention to building the temple. In order to make the building as beautiful as possible, Solomon employed the services of King Hiram of Tyre: “Solomon had depended on the skill of Hiram’s Phoenician architects and laborers, as well as precious Lebanon cedar, to construct the most impressive buildings in Jerusalem—the temple and the royal buildings for government. From almost the beginning of Solomon’s reign,’ . . . Hiram supplied Solomon with all the timber of cedar and cypress that he desired, while Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand cors [125,000 bushels] of wheat as food for his household, and twenty thousand cors [over a million gallons] of beaten oil. Solomon gave this to Hiram year by year,’ on an installment plan.” (Great People of the Bible, p. 190.)
Compare with 1 Samuel 8:11–18.
Although David received some revelation about the building of the temple (see 1 Kings 6:30–33), apparently Solomon received even more. President Brigham Young said: “The pattern of this temple, the length and breadth, and height of the inner and outer courts, with all the fixtures thereunto appertaining, were given to Solomon by revelation, through the proper source. And why was this revelation-pattern necessary? Because Solomon had never built a temple, and did not know what was necessary in the arrangement of the different apartments, any better than Moses did what was needed in the tabernacle.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 414.)
The temple of Solomon was later destroyed, and the kingdom of Judah was scattered. Zerubbabel’s temple, which Herod renovated, was later built on the same spot. This later temple was the one standing in the Savior’s day. (See Notes and Commentary on Ezra 6:13–15.)
|
|
|
The temple of Herod as it appears in the model city at the Holy Land Hotel in Jerusalem |
“Soon after Solomon’s accession to the throne he set about the labor, which, as heritage and honor, had come to him with his crown. He laid the foundation in the fourth year of his reign, and the building was completed within seven years and a half. With the great wealth accumulated by his kingly father and specifically reserved for the building of the Temple, Solomon was able to put the [surrounding lands] under tribute, and to enlist the co-operation of nations in his great undertaking. The temple workmen numbered scores of thousands, and every department was in charge of master craftsmen. To serve on the great structure in any capacity was an honor; and labor acquired a dignity never before recognized. . . . The erection of the Temple of Solomon was an epoch-making event, not alone in the history of Israel, but in that of the world.” (James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord, pp. 5–6.)
“A comparison of the plan of Solomon’s Temple with that of the earlier Tabernacle shows that in all essentials of arrangement and proportion the two were so nearly alike as to be practically identical. True, the Tabernacle had but one enclosure, while the Temple was surrounded by courts, but the inner structure itself, the Temple proper, closely followed the earlier design. The dimensions of the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the Porch, were in the Temple exactly double those of the corresponding parts in the Tabernacle.” (Talmage, House of the Lord, p. 6.)
The temple was long and narrow. According to the dimensions cited in the Bible, the temple was about one hundred feet long and thirty feet wide. It stood on a platform about nine feet high. The temple itself was about forty-five feet high. The Salt Lake Temple is 186½ feet long, 118½ feet wide, and 210 feet high.
See Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel, pp. 154–56.
See Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel, p. 148.
The month of Bul corresponds approximately with the month of November. “As this was the eighth month and the Temple was begun in the second, the time actually occupied in its construction was, in strictness, 7½ years” (Dummelow, Commentary, p. 215).
|
|
|
“Solomon’s Porch” was the name of this part of Herod’s temple. |
It took an additional thirteen years to build Solomon’s palace (see 1 Kings 9:10). Solomon’s palace “consisted of several buildings connected together; namely, (1) the house of the forest of Lebanon [see 1 Kings 7:2–5]; (2) the pillar-hall with the porch (ver. 6); (3) the throne-room and judgment-hall (ver. 7); (4) the king’s dwelling-house and the house of Pharaoh’s daughter (ver. 8). . . . The description of the several portions of this palace is so very brief, that it is impossible to form a distinct idea of its character. The different divisions are given in vers. 1–8 in their natural order, commencing at the back and terminating with the front (ver. 8).” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:89.)
A chapiter is an ornament or decoration at the top of a column or pillar (see William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, s.v. “chapiter”).
Bible scholars have generally been confused concerning the use of the huge molten sea of brass. Modern revelation assists the student today to understand its purpose. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:
“In Solomon’s Temple a large molten sea of brass was placed on the backs of 12 brazen oxen, these oxen being symbolical of the 12 tribes of Israel. (1 Kings 7:23–26, 44; 2 Kings 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chron. 18:8.) This brazen sea was used for performing baptisms for the living. There were no baptisms for the dead until after the resurrection of Christ.
“It must be remembered that all direct and plain references to baptism have been deleted from the Old Testament (1 Ne. 13) and that the word baptize is of Greek origin. Some equivalent word, such as wash, would have been used by the Hebrew peoples. In describing the molten sea the Old Testament record says, ‘The sea was for the priests to wash in.’ (2 Chron. 4:2–6.) This is tantamount to saying that the priests performed baptisms in it.
“In this temple building dispensation the Brethren have been led by the spirit of inspiration to pattern the baptismal fonts placed in temples after the one in Solomon’s Temple.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 103–4.)
“When the House of the Lord was completed, elaborate preparations were made for its dedication. First came the installation of the Ark of the Covenant and its appurtenances, the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and the holy vessels. With great solemnity and to the accompaniment of ceremonial sacrifice, the Ark was brought by the priests and placed within the Holy of Holies beneath the wings of the cherubim. At this time the Ark contained only the two tables of stone ‘which Moses put there.’ The staves by which the Ark was borne were so drawn out as to be visible from within the Holy Place, and then ‘it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.’ [1 Kings 8:10–11.]
“Then Solomon addressed the assembled multitude, reciting the circumstances under which the building of the Temple had been conceived by his father David and executed by himself, and proclaiming the mercy and goodness of Israel’s God. Standing before the altar of the Lord, in the court of the Temple, the king spread forth his hands toward heaven, and offered the dedicatory prayer. The king then blessed the people, saying ‘Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. The Lord our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us.’ [1 Kings 8:56–57.]
“The principal services with the attendant festivities lasted seven days, and ‘on the eighth day he sent the people away: and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had done for David his servant, and for Israel his people.’ [1 Kings 8:66.]” (Talmage, House of the Lord, pp. 34–35.)
Before Solomon gave the dedicatory prayer, a cloud of glory filled the house of God, indicating the very presence of God. That this glory should accompany the dedication exercises is interesting for Latter-day Saints, since a similar glory attended the dedication of the Kirtland Temple on 27 March 1836. Many present reported seeing angels and hearing the “sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple,” and many in the community reported “seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple” (History of the Church, 2:427). The special events attending the dedication of both temples are signs of the Lord’s divine acceptance of the houses built in His name to His honor.
Solomon’s dedicatory prayer gives a good insight into the state of Solomon’s heart at the time. His closeness to the Lord is very evident, particularly in 1 Kings 8:23, 28, 50–52. When the prayer was over, Solomon addressed the people and urged them to be faithful to the Lord. As the record of 1 Kings unfolds, however, it becomes evident how far Solomon and his people later departed from the spiritual state they were in on the day of dedication.
These verses contain a remarkable promise to Israel. In several places the Lord indicated that He uses the weather to chastise His people to bring them to repentance. President Spencer W. Kimball said:
“The Lord uses the weather sometimes to discipline his people for the violation of his laws. He said to the children of Israel:
“‘If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
“‘Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
“‘And your threshing shall reach into the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time; and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.
“‘And I will give you peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: . . . neither shall the sword go through your land.’ (Lev. 26:3–6.)
“Perhaps the day has come when we should take stock of ourselves and see if we are worthy to ask or if we have been breaking the commandments, making ourselves unworthy of receiving the blessings.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, pp. 4–5; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 4.)
First Kings 8:35–36 indicates that if the people repent of their sins, looking to the house of the Lord in prayer and supplication, the weather can be tempered and made to operate in behalf of the righteous.
As part of his dedicatory prayer, Solomon referred to a stranger who—
1. Comes from a far country (see v. 41).
2. Comes in the name of the Lord (see v. 41).
3. Prays toward the house of the Lord (see v. 42).
4. Asks the Lord for certain blessings upon Israel which Solomon asks the Lord to heed (see v. 43).
Elder James E. Talmage explained how the prophetic warning was ignored and came to fulfillment: “The glorious pre-eminence of this splendid structure was of brief duration. Thirty-four years after its dedication, and but five years subsequent to the death of Solomon, its decline began; and this decline was soon to develop into general spoliation, and finally to become an actual desecration. Solomon the king, the man of wisdom, the master-builder, had been led astray by the wiles of idolatrous women, and his wayward ways had fostered iniquity in Israel. The nation was no longer a unit; there factions and sects, parties and creeds, some worshipping on the hill-tops, others under green trees, each party claiming excellence for its own particular shrine. The Temple soon lost its sanctity. The gift became depreciated by the perfidy [betrayal] of the giver, and Jehovah withdrew His protecting presence from the place no longer holy.” (House of the Lord, pp. 6–7.)
Though Solomon’s remarkable building projects became world famous, they created serious problems in his own kingdom. He taxed the people heavily and used forced labor to complete his massive projects. The people began to complain, and a deep resentment, especially in the northern tribes, began to fester.
“The life of the common man had been disrupted. In the past, a man’s wealth had been calculated mostly by the land he owned, the number of flocks he had and the size of his family. Solomon’s sweeping economic changes altered that system. Land was no longer of supreme importance—in fact, it may have become somewhat of a burden. The more land a man owned, the more crops he could grow, and thus the more he would have to turn over to the king’s officers when collection time came around every 12 months. Likewise, flocks were surrendered to tax collectors and sons were forced to serve one month of every three in the king’s labor force.
“Now wealth was calculated not by property ownership but by the amount of money a man controlled. Certainly more and more money in gold and silver came into Israel every year, but very little of it ever filtered down to the average Israelite, who had to surrender so much of his livelihood to the king’s coffers. Instead, the money was used to pay growing international debts, salaries for the full-time government officials, commissions to merchants and artisans in the king’s employ, temple and palace upkeep and other expenses.
“For the first time in Israel’s history, there began to be a distinct difference between ‘rich’ and ‘poor.’ The king and his household were rich; the common people were poor. In between were the salaried civil servants and the merchants and artisans, many of whom had organized craft guilds by that time. Such class separations had not been known in the Israel where a shepherd boy like David could be anointed king—only 50 years earlier.” (Great People of the Bible, pp. 192–93.)
Hiram’s people, the Phoenicians, were masters of the sea, whereas the Israelites were not. First Kings 9:26–28 indicates that Hiram’s servants taught Solomon’s men the seafaring trade. As a result, Solomon was able to secure gold from Ophir (thought to be a port in southern Arabia) to be used to build the temple. (See also 1 Kings 10:23.)
It is very likely that the woman was a Sabean from Arabia near the southern end of the Red Sea (see Clarke, Commentary, 2:421). Three proofs are offered: (1) the area in which the Sabeans lived is known to have abounded in riches and spices; (2) many ancient writers refer to the gold and silver mines of Saba; and (3) the Sabeans had women rather than men for their rulers.
The description here indicates that the throne was similar to a round-topped, two-armed chair. The stays, or hands, were armrests on which the king could lean.
These verses sum up the tremendous wealth Solomon had amassed. Part of his wealth came through trading and international commerce, but much of it came through the economic oppression of the people.
|
|
|
Sheba was a wealthy nation in Solomon’s day. |
This chapter details the tragic fall of King Solomon. Although the Lord did not take Solomon’s kingdom from him as punishment, Solomon’s disobedience resulted in his kingdom being divided at his death. Like Saul and David who preceded him, Solomon began his reign in favor with God and man, but he soon let the power of the throne turn his heart away from God. Just as Saul’s and David’s had, Solomon’s promise turned into tragedy (see Notes and Commentary on 1 Kings 3:5–28).
Solomon married “strange women,” that is, foreign women, or those not of the covenant. Solomon’s marriages were for political expediency (see Notes and Commentary on 1 Kings 3:1) and perhaps for personal reasons as well. But these women brought to Israel their idols and heathen worship, which corrupted not only Solomon but the people also.
According to the Doctrine and Covenants, however, some of Solomon’s wives were given to him of the Lord: “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me” (D&C 132:38).
President Joseph Fielding Smith further explained that the Lord “did not condemn Solomon and David for having wives which the Lord gave them.
“Now turn to [2 Samuel] 12:7–8 and you will find that the Lord gave David wives. In your reading of the Old Testament you will also find that Solomon was blessed and the Lord appeared to him and gave him visions and great blessings when he had plural wives, but later in his life, he took wives that the Lord did not give him.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:214.)
Jacob 2:24–31 clearly teaches that plural wives may be taken only when doing so is authorized by the Lord. David’s taking plural wives was authorized by the Lord, for David’s wives “were given unto him of me [the Lord], by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power” (D&C 132:39). No plural marriages are authorized by the Lord today, and any attempt to justify them from ancient scripture will result in condemnation from the Lord.
Millo is “a place-name derived from the verb . . . ‘to be full’, ‘to fill’. . . . It was probably part of the fortification of [Jerusalem when it was a] Jebusite city, perhaps a solid tower (‘full’) or a bastion ‘filling’ some weak point in the walls, for it was evidently already in existence in the time of David [2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chronicles 11:8]. It was rebuilt by Solomon ([see 1 Kings 9:15, 24; 11:27]; the ‘breach’ here referred to was probably a different thing) as part of his programme of strengthening the kingdom, and was again strengthened some two and a half centuries later when Hezekiah was preparing for the Assyrian invasion [see 2 Chronicles 32:5]. This verse is taken by some to indicate that Millo was another name for the whole city of David, but it is more probable that it formed part of the defences of this, the south-eastern hill of later Jerusalem. Many theories have been put forward as to what part of the city of David was strengthened by the Millo, but excavation has not yet been sufficiently systematic to make identification possible.” (Douglas, New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Millo.”)
After Solomon had directly disobeyed the Lord by going after the gods of his heathen wives, the Lord told him that the kingdom would be taken from him and given to one of his servants (see 1 Kings 11:11). The servant was Jeroboam, whom Solomon had given authority over Ephraim and Manasseh (see v. 28). Jeroboam was told by the prophet Ahijah that he would rule over ten of the tribes of Israel. The tribe of Judah, however, was to continue under the reign of David’s line so that the promise that the Messiah would come through the lineage of David and from the tribe of Judah would be fulfilled (see Genesis 49:10). The kingdom of Judah would include half the small tribe of Benjamin, the Levites, and the strangers that were in Judah’s territory. At first, only part of Levi was with Judah, but after Jeroboam turned to idolatry, many more deserted to Judah. Eventually a good share of the tribe of Levi was in the south. (See 2 Chronicles 15:9.)
Because Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph, were two tribes, counting Levi there were thirteen tribes at this time instead of twelve.
This verse reiterates the promise made by the Lord to David that his kingdom would never become extinct while the earth should stand. The promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, a descendant of David.
See Notes and Commentary on Isaiah 11:1 for a discussion of Christ’s holding the keys of David.
See Notes and Commentary on 1 Kings 14:25.
|
|
|
The family of David. |
Solomon’s career began in as promising a way as anyone’s in the Old Testament. Israel had finally reached the borders that were to be hers, according to the Lord’s promise to Abraham, and the Lord had promised that peace would exist throughout Solomon’s entire reign.
The Lord appeared to the young king in a dream and asked, “What shall I give unto thee?” (see 1 Kings 3:5). Solomon, then humble and dedicated to the Lord, sought wisdom and was richly rewarded: “And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.” (1 Kings 4:29–30.)
Elder Howard W. Hunter likewise challenged us to obtain an understanding heart:
“If the Lord was pleased because of that which Solomon had asked of him, surely he would be pleased with each of us if we had the desire to acquire an understanding heart. This must come from conscious effort coupled with faith and firm determination. An understanding heart results from the experiences we have in life if we keep the commandments of God. . . .
“. . . The ills of the world would be cured by understanding. Wars would cease and crime disappear. The scientific knowledge now being wasted in the world because of the distrust of men and nations could be diverted to bless mankind. Atomic energy will destroy unless used for peaceful purposes by understanding hearts.
“We need more understanding in our relationships with one another, in business and in industry, between management and labor, between government and the governed. We need understanding in that most important of all social units, the family; understanding between children and parents and between husband and wife. Marriage would bring happiness, and divorce would be unknown if there were understanding hearts. Hatred tears down, but understanding builds up.
“Our prayer could well be as was Solomon’s, ‘Lord, give me an understanding heart.’” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1962, pp. 75–76.)
What are the necessary steps given by Elder Hunter to obtain an understanding heart? What problems would be solved in the world if everyone would strive to have an understanding heart?
Solomon allowed his love for material things and his great accomplishments as a builder to wean him from his early devotion to the Lord. True, he achieved great fame while the temple was being built, and his dedication of the house of the Lord was one of his most spiritual moments; but later, when the Queen of Sheba and other foreign visitors paid their respects, they said little about Solomon’s righteousness or wisdom. Rather, they expressed amazement and awe at his tremendous achievements in building. Solomon appears to have grown hungry for the plaudits of men. He decided to construct even grander structures. To do so, he enforced heavy taxation upon his people—so heavy that he eventually forced his people into poverty. Samuel’s warnings about what would occur if Israel were governed by a king were fulfilled in every particular (see 1 Samuel 8:11–18). Mismanagement of the nation’s wealth left united Israel tottering.
We all enjoy blessings from the Lord. If we are wise, we will accept the blessings with a grateful heart and walk in righteousness before the Lord.
Is affluence in the Church a problem today? Why? Do we sometimes forget the instructions given by the Savior in Matthew 6:33?
We, as modern Israel, need to avoid pride, misuse of wealth, and lust for the world’s esteem—three temptations that beset Solomon and led to his downfall. Are we any different? Even if we make some good decisions, could we also make some foolish ones that might destroy us?
Your patriarchal blessing can be an important guide to you. Because Solomon forgot his blessing from the Lord, he lost it. To help you remember, you might want to analyze your blessing by making a chart as follows:
My Patriarchal Blessing
|
Who Am I? Statements about you, your potential, your destiny, your relationship with God |
Promises Those things the Lord promises on condition of your faithfulness |
Admonitions Counsel, warnings, and reminders to you |
|
|
|
© Quebecor World Inc. |
The books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are sometimes called the “wisdom literature.” The sages of the ancient Near East realized the superiority of wisdom over knowledge, for wisdom encompasses knowledge and includes understanding and moral conduct. One was not wise, regardless of his vast learning, if his actions did not comply with his righteous beliefs: “Like all Hebrew intellectual virtues, wisdom . . . is intensely practical, not theoretical. Basically, wisdom is the art of being successful, of forming the correct plan to gain the desired results. Its seat is the heart, the centre of moral and intellectual decision [see 1 Kings 3:9, 12].” (J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “wisdom.”)
“The book of Proverbs in the Old Testament . . . is the best sample of Hebrew ‘Wisdom Literature’ derived apparently from the experiences of the race, epitomized by wise men into brief rules for behavior. The book contains less material accredited to divine revelation and more attributed to human evaluations than the books by the Prophets. As to Solomon’s authorship of proverbs, he is said in I Kings 4:33 to have spoken thousands of them, covering all facets of the relationships of nature, man and God. Whether the extant proverbs in the Bible include all of them, and whether all that are attributed to him are really his would be difficult to tell now. In any case, Proverbs, chapters 1–9 are entitled ‘Proverbs of Solomon.’ They are largely in the form of advice from a father to his son, but include also some long poems about wisdom (e.g., chapter 8, wherein ‘Wisdom’ is personified, and seems to be not an abstraction, but a personality, a member of the Godhead). Chapters 10–22:16 are appropriately entitled ‘Proverbs of Solomon,’ for they contain only the formal pithy little poetic couplets that are by definition proverbs proper. From 22:17 to the end of chapter 24 there are a variety of longer admonishments and maxims on matters moral and social. Chapters 25 to 29 also constitute a unit called ‘Proverbs of Solomon.’ Chapter 30 is called ‘The Words of Agur,’ and chapter 31 ‘The Words of King Lemuel.’” (Ellis T. Rasmussen, An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its Teachings [1st ed., 1969], 2:45.)
1. Read the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in their entirety to get the full impact of the wisdom in these works. Individual excerpts are often quoted, but the collection as a whole is also impressive.
2. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
3. The footnotes in the Latter-day Saint edition of the Bible are invaluable in helping you to interpret Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Be sure to check the alternate translations, definitions, and explanatory helps as you read these two books; they will greatly enhance your appreciation of the wisdom literature.
4. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
“The word translated ‘proverb’ . . . comes from a root which seems to mean ‘to represent’ or ‘be like’. . . . The word was, however, extended to sayings where no such analogy is evident, and came to designate a short pithy saying or byword.
“But the proverbs in this book are not so much popular sayings as the distillation of the wisdom of teachers who knew the law of God and were applying its principles to the whole of life.” (D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 549.)
“The general title is ‘The Proverbs of Solomon the son of David’. At several points in the book, however, there are rubrics [headings] giving the authorship of different sections. Thus sections are ascribed to Solomon at 10:1 and to ‘the wise’ at 22:17 and 24:23. At 25:1 there is the rubric ‘These also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied’; ch. 30 is headed ‘the words of Agur son of Jakeh’, and ch. 31 ascribed to ‘King Lemuel’, or, rather, to his mother.” (Guthrie and Motyer, New Bible Commentary, p. 548.)
According to the scriptural record, Solomon spoke or compiled three thousand proverbs and wrote 1,005 songs (see 1 Kings 4:32). Some of his wisdom was undoubtedly preserved by later writers and editors of the Old Testament and is now found in the wisdom literature.
The first verses of Proverbs state that one purpose of this collection of wisdom is to help men understand the “dark sayings” of the wise. The Hebrew idiom dark sayings connotes riddles or puzzles. The idea here is that the sayings of the wise are hidden or puzzling to those who are not wise.
The theme of the book of Proverbs is stated in verse 7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Fear as used here means reverence or deep respect for God. Though there is much in the book that does not rise above worldly wisdom, the whole serves as a reminder that to the Lord all things are spiritual (see D&C 29:34). The book underscores the idea that even in mortal life, when properly viewed, all things testify of God.
These verses express the idea that wisdom won through obedience to parental counsel is as a lovely ornament (crown) to one’s head and as chains (necklaces) about one’s neck.
This chapter stresses that wisdom is a gift of God obtained only by diligent searching, and God will watch over and protect those who receive it and remain faithful to it. This promise can be understood only when one remembers that to Israel, wisdom meant obedience to God’s laws.
In the Eastern and Western cultures, different parts of the human body symbolize the ideas of understanding and feeling. In the East one “understands” in his heart and “feels” in his bowels; in the West one “understands” in his head, or mind, and “feels” in his heart. Contrast Doctrine and Covenants 9:8, which says “your bosom shall burn within you,” with Proverbs 2:10, which says that “wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul” (see also Proverbs 6:18; 22:17).
The word froward as used in Proverbs is a translation of several Hebrew words which share the common idea of deceitfulness, perverseness, and foolishness.
The term strange women used throughout Proverbs refers not only to foreigners (non-Israelites) and idolaters but also to unchaste women. It is often synonymous with harlot.
President N. Eldon Tanner often quoted Proverbs 3:5–7. On one occasion he said:
“How much wiser and better it is for man to accept the simple truths of the gospel and to accept as authority God, the Creator of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ, and to accept by faith those things which he cannot disprove and for which he cannot give a better explanation. He must be prepared to acknowledge that there are certain things—many, many things—that he cannot understand.
“How can we deny or even disbelieve God when we cannot understand even the simplest things around us—how the leaf functions, what electricity is, what our emotions are, when the spirit enters the body, and what happens to it when it leaves? How can we say that because we do not understand the resurrection, there is not or cannot be a resurrection?
“We are admonished to ‘trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.’ (Prov. 3:5.) And we are warned: ‘Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isa. 5:21.)” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1968, p. 49.)
|
|
|
Ashtoreth |
These verses sound an often repeated theme in the scriptures: the Lord frequently chastens His children to help them grow and progress spiritually (see Helaman 15:3; D&C 95:1; 101:4–5).
After quoting Proverbs 4:7, Theodore M. Burton, then Assistant to the Council of the Twelve Apostles, said: “We must feed the spirit as well as the mind and as well as the body. I plead with our youth, get learning, and with all your getting get understanding. Get learning of the spirit. Get learning of the mind. Get learning of the soul, and become a rounded man or a rounded woman, learned in all ways, for I testify to you this day that security, true security, comes from a knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is the beginning of all learning and of all wisdom. This is the greatest knowledge, the greatest learning, the greatest comfort that men can have. If men have this knowledge in their hearts, they can withstand all the viscissitudes of life.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1961, p. 129.)
President Brigham Young once commented on these verses:
“The life of a Christian is said to be full of pain, tribulation, sorrow, and excruciating torments; of fightings without and fears within, of anxieties, despair, gloominess, and mourning. His path is supposed to be spread with gins [snares], pitfalls, and uncertainties, but this is a mistake, for ‘the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day,’ while ‘the wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips, but the just shall come out of trouble.’
“The faith I have embraced has given me light for darkness, ease for pain, joy and gladness for sorrow and mourning, certainty for uncertainty, hope for despair.” (In Journal of Discourses, 9:318; see also Proverbs 4:18; 12:13.)
President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., quoted these verses and commented: “I read these to show you that the Lord has not left us in doubt nor in darkness as to the things, some of them, that we should not do. We add these to the Ten Commandments.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1952, pp. 97–98.)
Proverbs 6:16 mentions six things and then a seventh that the Lord hates. This “Recalling of what has been said, in order to correct it as by an Afterthought” is a literary device often used by Hebrew writers to add beauty and power to expressions and to convey the idea of completeness (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 909–10). Other examples of this literary device are found in Proverbs 30:15, 18.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie commented on this verse: “If we think evil thoughts, our tongues will utter unclean sayings. . . . If our minds are centered on the carnality and evil of the world, then worldliness and unrighteousness will seem to us to be the normal way of life. If we ponder things related to sex immorality in our minds, we will soon think everybody is immoral and unclean and it will break down the barrier between us and the world. And so with every other unwholesome, unclean, impure, and ungodly course.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1973, p. 56; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, p. 48.)
This phrase is one of many commonly used expressions that come from the Old Testament. The phrase is also found in Deuteronomy 32:10, Psalm 17:8, and Lamentations 2:18. The word apple, however, refers not to the fruit but to the pupil of the eye (see William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, s.v. “apple”). The idiom suggests that just as the eye is a sensitive organ requiring care and protection, so is the law precious and worthy of protection.
Wisdom is enthroned and contrasted with the seductive, evil, and death-giving woman of Proverbs 7 (see vv. 10–23). In dignity and in the light of day, Wisdom beseeches all to come and partake of her life-giving rewards.
This verse expounds one of the simplest and yet most profound truths one can learn in life. Too often God’s children wait until times of distress to seek Him, and thus they may deprive themselves of the power and solace they need (compare Helaman 12:1–5; D&C 101:7–8).
“Slander is of the devil; the very word devil itself comes from the Greek diabolos which means a slanderer. It is natural, therefore, that slanderous reports against the Church have their origin, most generally, among those who are living carnal and sensual lives, whose conduct is such as to cause them to be guided and dominated by Lucifer.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 738.)
Nose jewels were a common adornment for the women of Israel and surrounding cultures, but a jewel in a swine’s snout was unthinkable because swine were held in such contempt among the Israelites. This proverb thus dismisses the value of physical beauty when it is not accompanied with self-control and righteousness.
|
|
|
Nose jewels |
Elder Marvin J. Ashton cautioned:
“When one considers the bad feeling and the unpleasantness caused by contention, it is well to ask, ‘Why do I participate?’ If we are really honest with ourselves, our answers may be something like: ‘When I argue and am disagreeable, I do not have to change myself. It gives me a chance to get even.’ ‘I am unhappy and I want others to be miserable too.’ ‘I can feel self-righteous. In this way I get my ego built up.’ ‘I don’t want others to forget how much I know!’
“Whatever the real reason, it is important to recognize that we choose our behavior. At the root of this issue is the age-old problem of pride. ‘Only by pride cometh contention.’ (Prov. 13:10.)
“If Satan can succeed in creating in us habits of arguing, quarreling, and contention, it is easier then for him to bind us with the heavier sins which can destroy our eternal lives. A contentious spirit can affect almost any phase of our lives. An angry letter written in haste can haunt us—sometimes for years. A few ill-advised words spoken in hate can destroy a marriage or a personal friendship, or impede community progress.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1978, pp. 11–12; or Ensign, May 1978, p. 9.)
Here again a profound truth is caught in simple language. The people one chooses to associate with in life can have a profound effect on what one turns out to be.
Brigham Young lived in an era when parents, especially fathers, were often severe and punished their children frequently. His advice is remarkably modern, but it does not advocate the permissive philosophy by which so many parents today rear their offspring: “Instead of using the rod, I will teach my children by example and by precept. I will teach them every opportunity I have to cherish faith, to exercise patience, to be full of long-suffering and kindness. It is not by the whip or the rod that we can make obedient children; but it is by faith and by prayer, and by setting a good example before them.” (In Journal of Discourses, 11:117.)
In an age when child abuse is becoming all too common, the admonition of Brigham Young’s counselor, George A. Smith, still rings true: “My opinion is that the use of the rod is very frequently the result of a want of understanding on the part of a spoiled parent . . . though of course the use of the rod in some cases might be necessary; but I have seen children abused when they ought not to have been, because King Solomon is believed to have made that remark, which, if he did, in nine cases out of ten referred to mental rather than physical correction.” (In Journal of Discourses, 14:374.)
In Doctrine and Covenants 121:41–43 the Lord makes it clear how He expects His Saints to accomplish their disciplining, not only in the Church, as this passage is often interpreted, but also in their homes.
Penury means severe poverty. The idea of this verse is that an idle tongue brings no profit either to the individual or to others. Many have talked about their schemes for getting rich, and yet they have remained poor because only their tongues were active.
President Brigham Young spoke of maintaining self-control in one’s speech and actions: “In all our daily pursuits in life, of whatever nature and kind, Latter-day Saints, and especially those who hold important positions in the kingdom of God, should maintain a uniform and even temper, both when at home and when abroad. They should not suffer reverses and unpleasant circumstances to sour their natures and render them fretful and unsocial at home, speaking words full of bitterness and biting acrimony to their wives and children, creating gloom and sorrow in their habitations, making themselves feared rather than beloved by their families. Anger should never be permitted to rise in our bosoms, and words suggested by angry feelings should never be permitted to pass our lips. ‘A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.’ ‘Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous;’ but ‘the discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.’” (In Journal of Discourses, 11:136; see also Proverbs 19:11; 27:4.)
Elder Marvin J. Ashton gave additional counsel about controlling one’s tongue:
“Too often we use communication periods as occasions to tell, dictate, plead, or threaten. Nowhere in the broadest sense should communication in the family be used to impose, command, or embarrass.
“. . . In family discussions, differences should not be ignored, but should be weighed and evaluated calmly. One’s point or opinion usually is not as important as a healthy, continuing relationship. Courtesy and respect in listening and responding during discussions are basic in proper dialogue. . . . How important it is to know how to disagree with another’s point of view without being disagreeable. How important it is to have discussion periods ahead of decisions. Jones Stephens wrote, ‘I have learned that the head does not hear anything until the heart has listened, and that what the heart knows today the head will understand tomorrow.’” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1976, p. 79; or Ensign, May 1976, p. 52.)
Neal A. Maxwell, then Commissioner of Church Education, commented:
“Our life style must make allowance for that need to deal with reality in our own lives. In Proverbs we read: [Proverbs 15:31–32].
“The disciple of Christ needs to expect the ‘reproof of life’—and suffering—for suffering is that sweat that comes from working out our salvation. Suffering is on the agenda for each of us.” (Freedom: a “Hard Doctrine,” Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, 12 Apr. 1972, p. 4.)
Volumes have been written about the dangers and temptations of wealth, but this simple statement summarizes the whole issue of wealth and righteousness.
Hoary means “white”; thus, this phrase could be translated as “the gray hair of old age” (Proverbs 16:31a).
|
|
|
A “hoary head” is a head of white hair. |
President David O. McKay often spoke to the youth of the Church about self-control and self-mastery:
“So the whole lesson is one of subduing, not just physical matter, that you might realize the ideal, but subduing your own passions and appetites, and conquering them. Some of you say we hear too much about keeping the Word of Wisdom. Why, it is one of the best lessons for the young in all this world, and for the old! You reach out to indulge in certain things. Resist, avoid creating an appetite for that which creates an appetite for itself. But beyond that, you develop the power to say, ‘No, thank you.’ And the strength that comes to the character more than compensates for any immediate pleasure. . . .
“I commend to you, young man and young woman, the virtue of self-mastery, if you would fulfill the true measure of your life in subduing, in order to realize the ideal, the spiritual development of your soul.” (In Deseret News, 6 Sept. 1952, p. 15.)
The expression “covereth a transgression” in this context does not mean that one hides or rationalizes a sin but rather means “forgives a transgression.” “Seeketh love” is better understood as “promotes a loving relationship.” (Proverbs 17:9a, b.)
President Hugh B. Brown said: “We have often urged our young people to carry their laughter over into their mature years. A wholesome sense of humor will be a safety valve that will enable you to apply the lighter touch to heavy problems and to learn some lessons in problem solving that ‘sweat and tears’ often fail to dissolve. [See Proverbs 17:22.]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1968, p. 100.)
Joseph Smith Translation, Proverbs 18:22, reads, “Whoso findeth a good wife hath obtained favor of the Lord” (emphasis added).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie pointed out that “the complete development of man’s moral character in conformity with principles of justice and uprightness is termed integrity. A man of integrity is sound, incorruptible, and particularly strict about fulfilling the trusts reposed in him by others. The highest manifestation of integrity is exhibited by those who conform their conduct to the terms of those gospel covenants and promises which they have made. Integrity goes hand in hand with uprightness and righteousness, and the Lord loves those who have integrity of heart. (D. & C. 124:15, 20.) ‘The integrity of the upright shall guide them’ (Prov. 11:3), and ‘The just man walketh in his integrity: his children are blessed after him.’ (Prov. 20:7.)” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 385.)
Sacrifice as used here refers to the Mosaic ordinance of sacrifice. Ancient Israel often would outwardly go through the acts of offering sacrifice without inwardly truly turning to God. Thus, the Lord often reminded them that inner righteousness is more pleasing to Him than outward conformity to ritual (compare 1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:11–15; Amos 5:21–26).
Two phrases in this verse need clarification: “An high look” means “haughty eyes,” and the “plowing of the wicked” means the “cultivating of wickedness” (Proverbs 21:4a, c).
The relationship between service to others and our own spiritual power is taught here and many other places in scripture (see Mosiah 2:17; Alma 34:28; Isaiah 1:16–20; James 1:27).
Of the obligation to serve others Elder Hugh B. Brown said:
“For years we have been teaching our theology, and successfully teaching it to the world. We must now make practical application of our religion; must again refer to and apply in our daily lives the words of the Master as recorded in holy writ. May I read some of them:
“‘Love one another.’
“‘By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples.’ . . .
“‘Remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support, that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.’
“‘Inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me.’
“‘Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.’
“It seems to me that the application of the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important task before us today. As I listened to Elder McKay this afternoon, telling us of the millions of young people outside the churches whose hearts are not being touched by religious instruction, I thought, this Church must furnish leadership for the world, must show the way out of this serious economic situation by calling attention to the message of Jesus and by applying the principles taught by him.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1932, pp. 74–75.)
No acceptable wisdom, understanding, or counsel will turn a person away from God. So often the world seeks to offer counsel and advice that runs counter to God’s will, but such advice must always be rejected, for it cannot stand in the eternities.
Anciently the horse was used only in warfare and battle; it therefore became a symbol of war and conquest (see Samuel Fallows, ed., The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, s.v. “horse”). This proverb means that people tend to multiply horses, or seek to defend themselves against their enemies by preparing for war, when their ultimate safety lies in trust and faith in God. This lessons seems to be forgotten, for modern societies increase their weaponry and give no thought to the role God plays in their defense.
Bishop Victor L. Brown suggested that Proverbs 22:6 implies that parents must live the way they want their children to live:
“Josh Billings paraphrases this truth: ‘To bring up a child in the way he should go, travel that way yourself.’ . . .
“Throughout the Church I hear . . . ‘If we did not have problems with parents, we would not have them with the young people.’” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1970, p. 31.)
James G. Duffin, a former president of the Central States Mission, said: “There is a difference between teaching and training. Teaching is causing the child to understand, training is causing the child to do. Every act performed is that much done towards fixing habits; repeated many times, the habit is established. If we train our children in the ways of the Lord, . . . every time they perform an act of obedience to the word and will of our Father in heaven their character becomes more firmly fixed in doing the things that God requires of them.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1909, p. 25.)
Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, who was then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said: “It is so obvious that the great good and the terrible evil in the world today are the sweet and the bitter fruits of the rearing of yesterday’s children. As we train a new generation, so will the world be in a few years. If you are worried about the future, then look to the upbringing of your children. Wisely did the writer of Proverbs declare, [Proverbs 22:6].” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1978, p. 25; or Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 18.)
Landmarks were not merely places of interest or distinctive geographical features to the people of the Middle East. In a world that did not have fenced property, landmarks were property markers. Even today in the Middle East one can see piles of rocks designating the division between one man’s land and another’s. To move such landmarks was a very serious thing indeed, since it was the equivalent of stealing another’s property.
See also Proverbs 23:10.
President Marion G. Romney emphasized this proverb in his sesquicentennial conference address:
“The great overall struggle in the world today is, as it has always been, for the souls of men. Every soul is personally engaged in the struggle, and he makes his fight with what is in his mind. In the final analysis the battleground is, for each individual, within himself. Inevitably he gravitates toward the subjects of his thoughts. Ages ago the wise man thus succinctly stated this great truth: ‘As he thinketh in his heart, so is he’ (Prov. 23:7).
“If we would escape the lusts of the flesh and build for ourselves and our children great and noble characters, we must keep in our minds and in their minds true and righteous principles for our thoughts and their thoughts to dwell upon.
“We must not permit our minds to become surfeited with the interests, things, and practices of the world about us. To do so is tantamount to adopting and going along with them. . . .
“If we would avoid adopting the evils of the world, we must pursue a course which will daily feed our minds with and call them back to the things of the Spirit.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1980, p. 88; or Ensign, May 1980, p. 66.)
“In the ancient system of physiology the kidneys [reins] were believed to be the seat of desire and longing, which accounts for their often being coupled with the heart” (William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “reins”).
The word reins is used frequently in Psalms and in the famous passage in Job 19:27.
|
|
|
Nahal Zin, a scene of Israel’s adversity |
Elder ElRay L. Christiansen commented on this verse:
“Because it is necessary for our development, the Lord permits the bitter to be mixed with the sweet. He knows that our individual faith must be tested in adversity as well as in serenity. Otherwise, that faith may not be sufficiently developed when a condition arises that can be met through faith alone.
“. . . Even in times of trouble and tribulation, the gospel of Christ offers encouragement and gives assurance.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1969, p. 39.)
Initially these verses sound as though a person is instructed to do the right thing for the wrong reason, that is, to forgive so that one’s enemy will receive a worse torment. Other scriptures, however, suggest a different interpretation: bringing someone to repentance and godly sorrow through sharpening conscience. (See Romans 12:19–20.)
“The burning of coals laid on the head must be a painful but wholesome consequence; it is a figure of self-accusing repentance . . . , [which is produced through] the showing of good to an enemy. . . . That God rewards such magnanimity may not be the special motive; but this view might contribute to it, for otherwise such promises of God [as Isaiah 58:8–12] were without moral right. The proverb also requires one to show himself gentle and liberal toward a needy enemy, and present a twofold reason for this: first, that thereby his injustice is brought home to his conscience; and, secondly, that thus God is well-pleased in such practical love toward an enemy, and will reward it;—by such conduct, apart from the performance of a law grounded in our moral nature, one advances the happiness of his neighbour and his own.” (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 6:2:168.)
Ecclesiastes is “a Greek translation of the Hebrew Koheleth, a word meaning ‘one who convenes an assembly,’ sometimes rendered Preacher. The book of Ecclesiastes consists of reflections on some of the deepest problems of life, as they present themselves to the thoughtful observer. The epilogue (Eccl. 12:9–14) sets forth the main conclusions at which the writer has arrived. The author describes himself as ‘son of David, king in Jerusalem’ (1:1).
“The book of Ecclesiastes seems permeated with a pessimistic flavor, but must be read in the light of one of its key phrases: ‘under the sun’ (1:9), meaning ‘from a worldly point of view.’ The term vanity also needs clarification, since as used in Ecclesiastes it means transitory, or fleeting. Thus the Preacher laments that as things appear from the point of view of the world, everything is temporary and soon gone—nothing is permanent. It is in this light also that the reader must understand 9:5 and 9:10, which declare that the dead ‘know not any thing,’ and there is no knowledge ‘in the grave.’ These should not be construed as theological pronouncements on the condition of the soul after death; rather, they are observations by the Preacher about how things appear to men on the earth ‘under the sun.’ The most spiritual part of the book appears in chapters 11 and 12, where it is concluded that the only activity of lasting and permanent value comes from obedience to God’s commandments, since all things will be examined in the judgment that God will render on man.” (Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Ecclesiastes.”)
These verses are among those most often quoted from Ecclesiastes. They suggest that there is an appropriate time for everything that occurs in human life. Elder Paul H. Dunn quoted Ecclesiastes 3:1 and commented:
“Our prophet, President Kimball, has counseled you, young people, particularly young men, as to that proper sequence. Would you note the sequence of events that will bring orderliness and happiness to your life. I quote from our prophet:
“‘One can have all the blessings if he is in control and takes the experiences in proper turn: first some limited social get-acquainted contacts, then his mission, then his courting, then his temple marriage and [now note] his schooling and his family, then his life’s work. In any other sequence he could run into difficulty.’ (Spencer W. Kimball, ‘The Marriage Decision,’ Ensign, Feb. 1975, p. 4.)” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1975, p. 91; or Ensign, May 1975, p. 62.)
President Brigham Young quoted Ecclesiastes 4:13 and then discussed the importance of one’s continuing to grow: “When I was baptized into this Church, it was in its infancy, although a considerable number had been baptized before me, and many of them were older when they were baptized than I was. They improved, their minds expanded, they received truth and intelligence, increased in the knowledge of the things of God, and bid fair to become full-grown men in Christ Jesus. But some of them, when they had gained a little spiritual strength and knowledge, apparently stopped in their growth. This was in the eastern country, and but a few years passed before the fruit-trees began to cease bearing fruit. . . . Like the fruit-trees, they have ceased to grow and increase and bear the fruits of the Spirit.” (In Journal of Discourses, 7:335.)
These verses are the most positive in Ecclesiastes. The counsel given here is in the form of brief proverbs or wise sayings.
Elder Adam S. Bennion said:
“You remember what the Lord has said: ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.’ (Gen. 3:19.) And there is this wonderful passage in John. When the Savior was criticized for something he did on the Sabbath, he answered his accusers by saying, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ (John 5:17.)
“And then that memorable passage from Ecclesiastes:
“‘The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: (I am glad I have not been rich—because this next line says) . . . but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.’ (Ecclesiastes 5:12.)
“All my life I have enjoyed the blessed privilege of living with people who love to work. I rejoice in a helpmate who delights in keeping up our home. . . .
“Someone has said, ‘Happy is the man who has work he loves to do,’ but somebody else has added the basic fundamental thought, ‘Happy is the man who loves the work he has to do.’” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1955, pp. 110–11.)
In this verse the Preacher comes close to the truth expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 130:17–19.
The theme here is resignation to the will of God. Become content by changing and controlling yourself and by refraining from doing wicked and foolish things. Part of wisdom lies in changing what can be changed and in accepting what cannot.
“The race is not to the swift, nor riches to men of wisdom. Do not fret, nor be so anxious about property, nor think that when you have gathered treasures, they alone will produce joy and comfort; for it is not so.
“The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor riches to men of wisdom. The Lord gives the increase: he makes rich whom he pleases. You may inquire, ‘Why not make us rich?’ Perhaps, because we would not know what to do with riches.” (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 7:241.)
This chapter is primarily a collection of proverbs. The unifying theme seems to be that without God life is vanity without purpose. Aside from their pessimistic outlook, these proverbs differ little from those in the book of Proverbs.
The stress here is threefold: (1) each individual must take advantage of opportunities while he has them; (2) life is uncertain, and there is no guarantee that opportunities lost will ever return; and (3) one’s future lies not in changing or in challenging but in accepting what is and making the most of it.
Jesus taught that we can control our destiny. We do have some influence on our circumstances as well as responsibility for how we respond to them. Our obligation is to do all we can and not just learn to be resigned to our lot.
We reap what we sow; we cast our bread on the waters and get a just return. Every good deed will have its reward, and every unworthy thought will register in some recess of the mind.
Brigham Young interpreted this expression as follows, tieing it to death and the Judgment: “Ere long we will have to lay down these tabernacles and go into the spirit world. And I do know that as we lie down, so judgment will find us, and that is scriptural; ‘as the tree falls so it shall lie,’ or, in other words, as death leaves us so judgment will find us.” (In Journal of Discourses, 4:52–53.)
This passage sounds negative, cynical, and without hope, but one must remember that the Preacher is speaking from the viewpoint of a man without God. From the standpoint of the natural man, it is difficult to argue against Ecclesiastes. When a person puts his trust in things under the sun (the things of the world), he finds no lasting spiritual benefits. Energy and labor expended, wisdom and knowledge acquired, fortune and prestige gained, goodness and virtue dispensed are empty without God and pointless in the eternal scheme of things without accompanying spiritual life. The purpose of Ecclesiastes is not to grind us down between futility and despair but to help us remember that there is meaning only through God and keeping His commandments. Otherwise all is vanity.
“Obviously we could not return to a place where we had never been, so we are talking about death as a process as miraculous as birth, by which we return to ‘our Father who art in heaven’” (Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, p. 6; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, p. 4).
In a related passage of scripture, Doctrine and Covenants 88:15–16, the Lord states that the body and the spirit together make up the soul. The separation of the body and the spirit is called death; their reuniting is called resurrection.
This one verse gives meaning to the entire book of Ecclesiastes. The Preacher finally sums up his whole philosophy and tells us to “fear God, and keep his commandments” (v. 13), to put first things first and all else will have meaning and not be just vanity. Life need not be empty or useless, spent in pursuing riches, fame, pleasure, or even wisdom.
Elder Henry D. Taylor, an assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve, said: “If we keep all of God’s commandments, we will enjoy a feeling of calmness, serenity, and strength. This will serve as a bulwark to protect us against the winds and storms created by the tensions and uncertainties of present chaotic world conditions. We need not wait until we get to heaven to obtain peace and happiness. We can have heaven on earth, here and now.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1961, p. 103.)
As you read the book of Proverbs and the book of Ecclesiastes, many gems of wisdom will attract your attention. Select the passages that are most important to you in your own pursuit of a more fulfilling life. Perhaps you need to work on one of the seven deadly sins, listed in Proverbs 6:16–19. Or maybe you need to improve in an aspect of your life such as the following:
1. Taking school and homework more seriously (see Proverbs 4:7).
2. Controlling your thoughts (see Proverbs 23:7).
3. Controlling your temper (see Proverbs 14:29; 25:28).
4. Developing more self-control (see Proverbs 16:32).
5. Accepting adversity with courage and hope (see Proverbs 24:10).
6. Keeping your word (see Ecclesiastes 5:4).
7. Putting wealth and comfort in their proper perspective (see Ecclesiastes 6:2; 9:11).
These are just a few suggestions; you select your own.
|
|
|
© Quebecor World Inc. |
“The daily newspaper screamed the headlines: ‘Plane Crash Kills 43. No Survivors of Mountain Tragedy,’ and thousands of voices joined in a chorus: ‘Why did the Lord let this terrible thing happen?’
“Two automobiles crashed when one went through a red light, and six people were killed. Why would God not prevent this?
“Why should the young mother die of cancer and leave her eight children motherless? Why did not the Lord heal her?
“A little child was drowned; another was run over. Why?
“A man died one day suddenly of a coronary occlusion as he climbed a stairway. His body was found slumped on the floor. His wife cried out in agony, ‘Why? Why would the Lord do this to me? Could he not have considered my three little children who still need a father?’
“A young man died in the mission field and people critically questioned: ‘Why did not the Lord protect this youth while he was doing proselyting work?’” (Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 95.)
Why do the righteous, those who love and serve God, suffer? In Job 1:8 the Lord called Job a “perfect and an upright man.” Why then did the Lord permit Satan to afflict His righteous servant?
Who is responsible for man’s troubles? Was it the Lord who directed the plane into the mountainside? Did God cause the highway collision? Was it He who prompted the young child to toddle into the canal or the man to suffer the heart attack? Responding to these questions, President Kimball said:
“Answer, if you can. I cannot, for though I know God has a major role in our lives, I do not know how much he causes to happen and how much he merely permits. Whatever the answer to this question, there is another I feel sure about.
“Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies? The answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents, drive all planes and cars, feed us, protect us, save us from labor, effort, sickness, even from death, if he will. But he will not.” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 96.)
The book of Job is a beautiful literary masterpiece that deals with this very question: Why do the righteous suffer? Many lessons are to be learned from the book, but one distinct lesson emerges above all others: after his suffering was ended, Job discovered that the Lord had “blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning” (Job 42:12). See if you can discover through your reading just what blessings Job obtained as a result of his suffering. In what way was his “end” better than his “beginning”?
1. A study of Job presents a particular challenge in a limited work such as this manual. Typical commentaries on the book of Job run to several hundred pages. The book is long, and its poetic form is often difficult to follow. Reading 3-2 is an analysis of the book of Job that captures the essence of the message and the effect of the literary form. If you study this reading carefully, when you read the book of Job itself you will find it much easier to understand.
2. A short Notes and Commentary is included; however, Reading 3-2 is your primary reading assignment. Read both before reading Job.
3. Read the book of Job.
4. No Points to Ponder section is included in this chapter because of the length of your reading assignment.
At the Sixth Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium held at Brigham Young University in January 1978, Keith H. Meservy, associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, delivered the following address, entitled “Job: ‘Yet Will I Trust in Him.’”
“What I say today can be regarded more as my reflections on the book of Job than any systematic analysis of its contents. It is a marvelous book and many superlative statements have been made about it. In particular, Victor Hugo notes, ‘The book of Job is perhaps the greatest masterpiece of the human mind’ (Henry H. Halley, Pocket Bible Handbook, Chicago, 1946, p. 232). Thomas Carlyle says, ‘I call this book apart from all theories about it, one of the grandest things ever written. Our first, oldest statement of the never ending problem—Man’s Destiny, and God’s ways with him in the earth. There is nothing written, I think of equal literary merit’ (ibid). An Old Testament scholar, H. H. Rowley, reflects, ‘The book of Job is the greatest work of genius in the Old Testament, and one of the world’s artistic masterpieces’ (H. H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament, 1966, p. 143). . . .
“I’m impressed that the book of Job vividly illustrates a teaching from the Lectures on Faith, that if anyone is to endure in faithfulness in his life, he must know three things: that God exists, that he is perfect in his character and in his attributes, and that the course of life which one pursues is pleasing to the Lord. If any one of these elements is missing then the full basis for faith is missing. Job is regarded as a man of faith; let’s look for these elements in his life.
“The very first verse in the book described him as a man who was ‘perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed [or turned away from] evil’ (1:1). Significantly, the Lord acknowledged in identical phraseology the goodness of this man (1:8). This matter-of-fact acceptance of Job’s goodness by the writer and especially the Lord is paramount to any satisfactory understanding of the question underlying this book—why a righteous man suffers. This very goodness, however, became an issue with the Adversary (Hebrew: satan; adversary, here: hassatan = the Adversary). He cynically stated that Job’s good behavior and reverence had been heavily underwritten by the Lord when he blessed Job with such a prosperous and rewarding life—who wouldn’t serve God under such circumstances?
“He who poses such questions seems never to learn. On another occasion, he would take this same Lord, the Word now made flesh, to the top of a high mountain and offer to buy his allegiance, in a way reminiscent of the way he thought the Word had bought the allegiance of Job—by showing him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, and then promising him who had no place even to lay his head, that, ‘all these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me’ (Matt. 4:8–9). How frustrated Satan must be to realize that for such occasions he never has the true coin. Ironically, he who said, ‘Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve’ (vs. 10), placed Job in the hands of this same Adversary with the words, ‘All that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand’ (Job 1:12).
“In one day, Job was impoverished—all the bases of his wealth—oxen, asses, servants, sheep, camels, even his posterity, were obliterated. Job’s submissive response to such a negating blow was as complete as Jesus’, ‘Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: Blessed be the name of the Lord’ (1:21). ‘In all this,’ says the record, ‘Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly’ (1:22).
“Satan had erred in concluding that goods, wealth and even posterity, were the essence of Job’s life, since the meaning of life for him transcended the loss of all of these things. . . .
“With impeccable faith he had kept his hand on the plow and maintained his integrity (2:3).
“Satan, seeking deeper reasons for Job’s fidelity, concluded that Job would ultimately turn from the Lord if he could be hurt enough. ‘Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.’ The Lord replied simply, ‘He is in thine hand; but save his life’ (2:4–6). With devilish power Satan then inflicted Job with sore boils, making him so miserable that his wife urged him to curse God and die. Heroically, Job replied simply, ‘What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ Our author succinctly concluded, ‘In all this did not Job sin with his lips’ (2:10). Thus, Satan’s contention was demonstrably wrong, Job’s faith had not and did not fail and the Lord was vindicated.
“As becomes apparent, however, Job’s struggle was not over. His test, as severe as it was, was not merely to be impoverished, left without offspring, and afflicted with pain for a day and then, having passed the test, find release. Time’s leavening must sharpen his pain, deepen his disappointment and intensify his discouragement, to see if heightened tension would break his spirit and drive him from the Lord. Job had well sustained the initial shock but when successive waves engulfed the total reality of his daily life, would he still endure? This question neither he nor the devil could answer initially. Thus, time was assigned to chew away at Job’s inner strength until he became miserable—miserable in spirit and body, so miserable in fact, that death appeared in his mind as a coveted, comforting, liberating friend. Who can imagine the state of his mind at this point? Perhaps some of us, maybe none of us. One thing, however, is clear. If we are to empathize at all with his feelings, we must see his life from his own perspective. Job permitted us this by opening his heart and vividly contrasting his present misery with his former blessed state.
“The author himself supplied the note that formerly Job had been one of the greatest of all men of the east. He then showed Job looking back nostalgically through his grief to those days when God matter-of-factly preserved him, when his candle shined on Job’s head and when by his light he walked through the darkness. At that time, all men, young, aged, princes, nobles alike paid deference to Job. Highly regarded at all levels of society, his counsel was often sought and never superseded. Beloved by all, he was a boon to anyone in need. In such circumstances, Job took great comfort in feeling that he was as secure as a root in a well-watered soil. His days ahead would multiply like sand and he would die securely in his nest with his glory round about him, dwelling as a chief among his people. [Note Job’s words in 29:2–11, 18–20.]
“Then the change. We have noted already the loss of wealth, health, and posterity. But his hurts continued to rise in successive waves till death seemed to be a deliverer from a pain-engulfed life. What were these hurtful waves?
“First: We must recognize without knowing exactly what it was that he suffered from physically. From the symptoms, some have said that it appears that he had elephantiasis. Sore boils, one of the symptoms of this disease, had attacked ‘Job’s body, forming large pustules which itched so greatly that a piece of pottery was used to scrape them. Job’s face was so disfigured that his friends could not recognize him. Worms or maggots were bred in the sores (7:5). His breath became so foul and his body emitted such an odor, that even his friends abhorred him (19:17ff), and he sought refuge outside the city on the refuse heap where outcasts and lepers lived. Pain was his constant companion (30:17, 30) as were also terrifying nightmares (7:14).’ (The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, p. 641, note.) . . .
“Second: whereas, formerly old, young, princes and nobles alike honored Job, he now felt abused by those whom society itself rejects; who live on the outskirts of town, among the bushes, along the ditchbanks, or in caves.
“Job says of them: ‘They that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock . . . They were driven forth from men, (they cried after them as a thief) . . . they were children of fools, yea children of base men: they were viler than the earth. And now I am their song, yea, I am their byword. They abhor me, they flee far from me and spare not to spit in my face. Because he hath loosed my cord, and afflicted me. They have also let loose the bridle before me. Upon my right hand rise the youth; they push away my feet, and they raise up against me the days of their destruction. They mar my path, they set forward my calamity . . .’ (30:1, 5, 8–13). . . .
“The loss of his prosperity, property and wealth with its related loss of security was one thing; and loss of health and strength with pain and misery as daily attendants, was another, but for some unexplained reason, at this critical juncture in his life Job suffered a loss that, in its way, may have been as significant as any of these others. He lost the support that loyal friends and loving kinsfolk might have given had they but rallied around him in this trying moment of his life. But, oddly enough, this was not to be. Thus, in his deepest need, Job stood awesomely alone, isolated from any who might have commiserated with him in this trying time. And, here again, he held the Lord responsible for having effected this rupture between him and his friends.
“‘He hath put my brethren far from me, and mine acquaintance are verily estranged from me. My kinsfolk have failed, and my familiar friends have forgotten me. They that dwell in mine house, and my maids, count me for a stranger: I am an alien in their sight. I called my servant, and he gave me no answer; I entreated him with my mouth. My breath is strange to my wife, though I entreated for the children’s sake of mine own body. Yea young children despised me; I arose, and they spake against me. All my inward friends abhorred me: and they whom I loved are turned against me. My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh, and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth. Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends: for the hand of God hath touched me. Why do ye persecute me as God?’ (19:13–22).
“Even Job’s wife became hopeless and, failing to comfort him, helpless, challenging him rather to ‘curse God and die.’ Under these circumstances, ‘when other helpers fail and comforts flee,’ many in their deepest need and most trying time have looked to the ‘Help of the helpless’ to abide with them, needing his presence; what else but his grace can foil the tempter’s power? Job, too. Hadn’t God’s candle always before shined upon his head whenever he walked through the darkness? Hadn’t he always been a party to the secrets of the Lord? (21:3–5). Surely Job could turn again to the Lord in this time of distress. . . .
“. . . But the heavens remained still silent. And for a good reason too, as we know, silence itself had become part of the test. But what a problem this posed for Job. Deep, depressing darkness cowed him by its awful blackness and terrified him by its pervasiveness. Listen to his anguished plea with the Lord for soul-relief, relief that included an answer to his persistent but continually unanswered question: Why? Why? Why?
“. . . ‘Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?’ (13:20–24, emphasis added.) ‘Behold, I cry out of wrong, but I am not heard: I cry aloud, but there is no judgment. He hath fenced up my way that I cannot pass, and he hath set darkness in my paths’ (19:6–8, emphasis added). ‘O that one might plead for a man with God, as a man pleadeth for his neighbor!’ (16:21). ‘Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments. I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me. Will he plead against me with his great power? No; but he would put strength in me. There the righteous might dispute with him; so should I be delivered for ever from my judge. Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive him: On the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him: He hideth himself on the right hand that I cannot see him’ (23:3–13, emphasis added).
“Thus, Job, in turn deprived inexplicably in his own mind of his wealth, his family, and his health, living daily in much pain, deprived of the psychological and spiritual support of friends and loved ones who should have cared, ultimately finds himself deprived of the support of the Lord—the greatest of all comforters. No one seems to have asked Job which of these losses afflicted him the most; but, at least, initially, Job was able to say of the Lord that he had given, he had also taken away. One, therefore, suspects that in the long run his greatest loss and deepest need came when he finally realized that the Lord was not responding to his heart-felt cries. . . .
“These personal sentiments of Job expose somewhat his physical, psychological and spiritual suffering and prepare us to accept his feeling that under such circumstances death, by way of contrast, would be a great comfort. We note emphatically, however, that Job never appeared to have contemplated suicide. He just longed for death. In these circumstances, three comforters appeared on the scene. To their credit, out of deference to Job they remained silent until he had spoken. The first remarks they heard him make, showed how much and how earnestly he desired a death that constantly eluded his chastened aspirations. [See Job 6:8–11.] . . .
“Job, partially unburdened, was addressed by the first of the comforters, who presented to Job what now became his ultimate affliction—the uncomfort of comforting men to whom he finally said, ‘Miserable comforters are ye all.’ He had attempted to express to them how deep his anguish was, they, uncomprehending, rejected the cry of his soul and drew conclusions about his ultimate need, inferring in the process that he had forsaken the Lord and, consequently, suffered divine affliction. They prescribed repentance if ever he hoped to regain divine favor again. Their imputation of sin to him when he knew that he was sinless, angered him. Blindly they spoke not to his need but to their own. When he affirmed his integrity, they charged him with self-righteousness, and increasingly attempted to shake him loose from what they regarded as a self-complacency born of his insuperable self-righteousness. This mutual misunderstanding led ultimately to the frustration of both Job and his comforters.
“The first imputation of sin was made by Eliphaz, who began generally enough but ended up finally charging Job with specific sins, sins that anyone who really knew his character could not and would not believe.
|
|
|
Animals are forms of Eastern wealth. |
“By noting that Job himself had been the kind of person who has always ‘strengthened the weak hands . . . and upholden him that was falling and strengthened the feeble knees,’ (4:3–4) they felt encouraged to offer Job the kind of help that they felt he had formerly given to others. In Eliphaz’ mind this meant facing Job up to his real need—an honest assessment of his situation. Said Eliphaz, ‘Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? Or where were the righteous cut off? Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness reap the same, By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed (4:7–9).’ No question in his mind, Job appeared to have been cut off, to have felt the blast of God, and the breath of his nostrils. The implication was all too clear to Job.
“Granted the validity of the ‘law of the harvest’ or the principle of cause and effect, but for them to reason from the effects to the cause and conclude that only a life out of harmony with the Lord could produce the kind of effects that Job was getting is something that we, the readers, the Lord, Satan, and Job all know was not true. And this invalid judgment made their counsel irrelevant. But this was not the only problem their counsel possessed for Job. His double loss by their kind of comfort was to be deprived of the much-needed support they could have given him if they had understood his true position, and also to be forced to listen to an insinuating, demoralizing kind of criticism that must have undermined his personal reserve, and devastated a man whose days already were spent without hope. Eliphaz’ concluding counsel to Job was for him to humble himself, commit his life to God and despise not his chastening, and then the Lord would heal him and bind up his wounds. Galling balm indeed!
“Job attempted communication on another level, hoping to gain some empathy by telling them how hurtful his hurts really were: ‘Oh that my grief were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances together! For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea’ (6:2–3). He asked of them something which he had been asking of the Lord. If they really wanted to serve his needs they must help him see clearly what he must do in order to obtain divine favor again. ‘Teach me, and I will hold my tongue; and cause me to understand wherein I have erred. How forcible are right words? But what doth your arguing reprove?’ (6:24–25). Job knew they had not yet perceived the source of his problem but honestly invited their clearer perception of his predicament.
“After Bildad’s insinuation (8:2–6) and Job’s extended speech (chs. 9–10), Zophar stepped into the discussion, wondering if such a long speech could vindicate anyone. Actually, he suspected that Job was rationalizing and charged him, in addition, with lying and mocking. ‘Should thy lies make men hold their peace? And when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed? For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine (God’s) eyes. But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee: and that he would show thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth’ (11:3–6). As a friend, it seemed that Zophar willingly twisted the blade that Eliphaz had deftly driven into Job’s tender heart. ‘Prepare thine heart,’ said he, pray to God, and ‘if iniquity be in thine hand, put it far away’ (11:13–20).
“Time will not allow us to discuss the rest of the speeches. Job insisted that as a man of integrity he was following the correct course for him. If he were to do as they suggested, and go either right or left from where he was, he would be deviating from the truth. Having asked both the Lord and his fellows for better direction, he had learned that the Lord had said nothing, and the comforters, though saying much, had misjudged his situation, and consequently said nothing relevant.
“Some infer from the positive nature of Job’s statements that he was an arrogant, self-righteous person, yet, our data suggests just the opposite. He was a man whose right relationship with the Lord led him to speak with great confidence. There are some marvelous passages in the book that vividly reflect his sense of integrity. For example: ‘As God liveth, who hath taken away my judgments; and the Almighty who hath vexed my soul; All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils; my lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit. God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live’ (27:2–6, cf. ch. 31).
“Job’s statements about himself indicate an important reason why he continued to trust the Lord. He knew that the course of life he was pursuing was pleasing to the Lord. He also knew that he had maintained this course under considerable stress, which he also regarded as being a test from the Lord. Thus, Job, as a God-fearing man, maintained his integrity not only to God, but also to himself, knowing that the two of them were in complete harmony. At the same time, his continuing trust in the Lord under such intense stress says volumes about the quality of the knowledge he had about the nature and character of the Lord whom he served. And that, of course, was at the heart of his test—why should he continue to serve the Lord when life and its meaning seemed so adverse to his (Job’s) own nature and character? The Adversary himself had concluded that intolerable circumstances such as these would drive the last feelings of loyalty out of the heart of the most ardent follower of the Lord. He did not, however, know how well Job knew the Lord and that the better anyone knows the Lord the more worthy of trust he appears. This experience, then, with Job must have shattered and discouraged him in his adversary role. And Job, almost as if he knew what had been in the Adversary’s mind, cried out to his comforters in such words of integrity and faith that under the circumstances it would be hard, if not impossible, to parallel, and provided, in doing so, the ultimate answer to the Adversary.
“‘Hold your peace, let me alone, that I may speak, and let come on me what will. Wherefore do I take my flesh in my teeth, and put my life in mine hand? Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him. He also shall be my salvation: for a hypocrite shall not come before him. Hear diligently my speech, and my declaration with your ears. Behold now, I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified’ (13:13–18, emphasis added). This is not an arrogant, proud voice, but the voice of a divinely assured son of God, who knows the source of his strength and integrity.
“In the fiery furnace, Job had shown not only the Adversary but also himself that the correct knowledge about God and a right relationship with him were of more value than anything he had obtained out of life—including length of days, offspring, friends, and loved ones, even wealth and health. Job’s simple but profound, ‘though he slay me, yet will I trust in him’ becomes then an absolute refutation of every argument of the adversary about why men serve the Lord and shows that the devil either lied or was deluded when he said otherwise. Thus, it is in this, the thirteenth chapter where Job demonstrates how profound his knowledge and faith in God is, and not the nineteenth or forty-second, that for me the high point of the book of Job is reached.
“In this light President McKay has said that he has always ‘thought that the purpose of the book of Job was to emphasize the fact that the testimony of the spirit—the testimony of the Gospel, is beyond the power of Satan’s temptation or any physical influence’ (Dedication of the Salt Lake Temple Annex in 1963, Deseret News). The book of Job therefore becomes a great testimonial to us of this great truth. Thus, the three things that any person must know if he is to have faith in the Lord are all reflected in Job’s life. His marvelous testimony, ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth’ (19:25), indicates how well he knew of the Lord’s existence. Statements like the one in ch. 13, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him,’ indicated how well he knew the Being in whom he trusted. And finally, the knowledge that the course of life that he was pursuing was pleasing unto the Lord, all gave him the strength to endure in faithfulness when adversity came into his life. His life, then vividly illustrates that such faith comes when one knows that God exists, that he is perfect in his character and attributes, and that the course of life one pursues is pleasing to the Lord. . . .
“. . . Obviously, more was involved in this personal encounter than first appears to the reader. There was more going on here than the Lord showing the Adversary why men serve him. One must infer that the experience was ultimately most meaningful to Job rather than to the Lord or Satan. . . .
“Elsewhere, we note that the Lord did stand by Job and Job knew it. So it may well be that as with the rich young man who came to Jesus asking, ‘what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?’, that Job, too, had one thing that he lacked and that the Lord ‘beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest . . .’ (Mark 10:17–21), and the only thing that Job lacked was the perfection of his faith, as the following extract from the Lectures on Faith may suggest. For the perfection of his faith could only come when he had sacrificed his all and knew that he had sacrificed his all because the Lord had commanded it—after all, he did know that the Lord was responsible for his predicament. And a sacrifice by its very nature is a test of obedience and obedience is a sign of faith. Keep Job in mind while reading the following text:
“‘An actual knowledge to any person, that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing (not believing merely) that they had a more enduring substance.’ (Hebrews x. 34). . . .
“‘Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.
“‘Those, then, who make the sacrifice, will have the testimony that their course is pleasing in the sight of God: and those who have this testimony will have faith to lay hold on eternal life, and will be enabled, through faith, to endure unto the end, and receive the crown that is laid up for them that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .’ (Lectures on Faith, N. B. Lundwall, Salt Lake City, Utah, n.d., pp. 57–59).
“The story of Job demonstrates the truth of this concept. We come then to the end of the book where we find the Lord through vivid figures of speech attempting to unsettle Job for presuming to question the Lord’s dealings with him (chs. 38–39). Job is then challenged to explain why he did this. ‘Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it’ (40:2). Job acknowledged that he had spoken once, but, for reasons apparent later (see below), he promised not to speak twice (40:3–5). The Lord then asked ‘Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?’ (40:8). What soul-searching questions! Further vivid figures of the Lord’s power and wisdom follow in chapters 40–41, leading Job to confess that he had uttered things that he did not understand (42:3). Job had learned anew not to counsel the Lord but to ‘take counsel from his hand’ (Jacob 4:10). . . .
“This is something that Job understood (ch. 9), but now in some way inexplicable to us he had come to understand something more about the Lord through a ‘seeing’ experience than he had then understood when he had only ‘heard’ of him. Said he, ‘I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes’ (42:5–6).
“The trial being over, this blessing had come to Job, he now perceived the imperceivable. The implication is that Job now accepted all that had happened to him without further questioning of the divine providence. It is almost as though Job ended up by saying, ‘All is well! All is well!’ His most recent personal encounter with the Lord, whatever it consisted of, had taught him this.
“It is difficult to live with tension, but mortality—where we see through the glass darkly—is filled with it. There are always ultimate answers to what may appear to be meaninglessness or inexplicability in our lives, though these are not immediately apparent to us, the Lord however, has promised to supply them—eventually (D&C 121:28–32; 101:27–35). Any individual who insists that a good religious belief must explain all of life’s contingencies if it is to be believable and acceptable, should re-read Job or take counsel from Elder Harold B. Lee who affirmed:
“‘It is not the function of religion to answer all questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give courage (through faith) to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status. Therefore, take heed of yourselves, and as a wise world thinker once said, “If the time comes when you feel you can no longer hold to your faith, then hold to it anyway. You cannot go into tomorrow’s uncertainty and dangers without faith”‘ (Church News, source not quoted).” (Keith H. Meservy, “Job: ‘Yet Will I Trust in Him,’” pp. 139–53.)
Many Bible scholars divide the book of Job into three parts: the prologue, the poem, and the epilogue. Chapters 1 and 2 are the prologue, which sets the stage and introduces the plot. Chapters 3 through 42:6 are the poem, which is written in a Hebrew poetic form (even though the language of the King James Version is very poetic in these chapters, it does not quite capture the poetic quality and form of the original Hebrew). The poem includes the speeches of Job’s three friends, Job’s replies to them, and the discourses of the young man, Elihu, who thinks he can do a better job of solving the riddle of Job’s suffering than did Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. The last eleven verses of Job are the epilogue, which simply reports the final blessing and benediction of the Lord. It, like the prologue, is written in prose.
Scholars have not been as concerned with who Job was as they have been with whether or not he was a real person. Adam Clarke wrote of Job’s identity and existence: “I shall not trouble my readers with the arguments which have been used by learned men, pro and con, relative to the particulars already mentioned: were I to do this, I must transcribe a vast mass of matter, which, though it might display great learning in the authors, would most certainly afford little edification to the great bulk of my readers. My own opinion on those points they may naturally wish to know; and to that opinion they have a right: it is such as I dare avow, and such as I feel no disposition to conceal. I believe Job to have been a real person, and his history to be a statement of facts.” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 3:5.)
Meservy noted: “Although some scholars have felt that the book is not a true story about a real man, I think the majority of the scholars do. Granted, it is a literary work with a prologue (chs. 1–2) and an epilogue (ch. 42) that were composed in narrative form and a body of the work (3–41) that was composed in Hebrew poetry, but to say that it is a literary composition is not to deny its basis in fact, any more than to say that a book, play, or even a musical based on Joseph Smith’s life is not true because it is an artistic or literary work. Ezekiel and James, for example, regarded him as historical and referred to Job among the great individuals known for their faith and prayer power (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; James 5:11). This is significant. There are other reasons for regarding Job as an historical person but, to me, the most decisive criterion in this regard, is the fact that when Joseph Smith and his people were in great distress, and Joseph Smith went to the Lord and said, ‘Oh God, where art thou? Where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place.’ The Lord responded to his appeal for help by saying, ‘my son, peace be to thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high . . . Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgressions, as they did Job’ (D&C 121:7–10, emphasis added). Now, if Job were not real and his suffering, therefore, were merely the figment of some author’s imagination, and Joseph Smith on the other hand was very real, and his suffering and that of his people were not imaginary, then for the Lord to chide him because his circumstances were not as bad as Job’s were, would provide an intolerable comparison, since one cannot compare real with unreal things. On the other hand, since the Lord did make the comparison, it must be a real one. I would, therefore, conclude on this basis alone, that Job was a very real person. The Brethren, also, when they have referred to Job, have regarded him as a real person, for example, John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 7:197–198; 18:309–310; 20:305–306; 22:319–320; Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 18:30; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 19:315.” (“Job: ‘Yet Will I Trust in Him,’” pp. 154–55.)
Some have questioned whether God converses with the devil and his spirit-followers as described here. These verses may be a poetic way of setting the stage for what follows in Job’s life—his afflictions, temptations, loss of worldly goods—rather than a reporting of an actual conversation. The Lord does not bargain with Satan or agree to his evil deeds. However, Satan is permitted by the Lord to afflict and torment man until Lucifer’s allotted time on earth is done. Thus, Job’s trials would be consistent with the concept that Satan was allowed by God to bring the afflictions upon Job, not because of a bargain God made with Satan, but because it fit God’s purposes for Job.
Meservy suggested that the appearance of Satan to the “sons of God,” however, can be explained literally: “Is the portrayal of the devil in chs. 1–2 a true one? I believe so. We are told there that Satan came among the sons of God? Who are these sons? Usually this term means in the scriptures those who have covenanted to serve the Lord and are willing to take his name upon them by baptism and are born again, and are then led by the Spirit of God. These are his sons and these are they who cry ‘Abba Father.’ (Moses 6:65–68, 7:1; Mosiah 5:7–10, 15:10–12; D&C 11:30, 39:4–6, 76:23–24, 51–60; Romans 8, esp. vv. 14–17). Our author says, ‘there was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them’ (Job 1:6). This would suggest that Satan came among the faithful when they met to carry out their religious devotions. At the time the Lord chose to single out one of them in a remark to Satan.” (“Job: ‘Yet Will I Trust in Thee,’” p. 155.)
Job, while he did not understand why God permitted his affliction, would not judge the Lord nor lose his faith in Him. “Let me alone,” he said to his friends, “let come on me what will” (v. 13). God was his salvation, and Job trusted in Him alone. Job saw his afflictions in perspective. As President Spencer W. Kimball said: “If we looked at mortality as the whole of existence, then pain, sorrow, failure, and short life would be calamity. But if we look upon life as an eternal thing stretching far into the premortal past and on into the eternal post-death future, then all happenings may be put in proper perspective.” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 97.)
Job’s friends challenged God’s wisdom, and they saw Job’s suffering as a punishment sent from God. But Job had a greater understanding. He knew that God was there, although his prayers for relief were not answered as he might wish. Should his suffering really have been the result of personal sin, he begged the Lord to cause him to know so that he could repent (v. 23).
But suffering is not always the result of sin. Suffering has a larger purpose, part of which is educative. President Kimball said:
“Is there not wisdom in his giving us trials that we might rise above them, responsibilities that we might achieve, work to harden our muscles, sorrows to try our souls? Are we not exposed to temptations to test our strength, sickness that we might learn patience, death that we might be immortalized and glorified?
“If all the sick for whom we pray were healed, if all the righteous were protected and the wicked destroyed, the whole program of the Father would be annulled and the basic principle of the gospel, free agency, would be ended. No man would have to live by faith.
“If joy and peace and rewards were instantaneously given the doer of good, there could be no evil—all would do good but not because of the rightness of doing good. There would be no test of strength, no development of character, no growth of powers, no free agency, only satanic controls.
“Should all prayers be immediately answered according to our selfish desires and our limited understanding, then there would be little or no suffering, sorrow, disappointment, or even death, and if these were not, there would also be no joy, success, resurrection, nor eternal life and godhood.” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 97.)
In the King James Version, this verse affirms Job’s faith in a physical resurrection. In many other versions of the Bible, however, this verse does not affirm such a belief; in fact, in these versions Job says he will see God but not in his flesh. How is it possible that two completely contradictory translations could come from the same text? Meservy explained:
“We might note parenthetically that the great testimony of Job in 19:26 has been interpreted in two ways: ‘Yet in my flesh shall I see God’ (King James Version) and ‘Then without my flesh shall I see God.’ (Jewish Publication Society Version, 1917). The first of these implies the literal resurrection, the other does not. The Hebrew text says, ‘from my flesh,’ and this can be interpreted in either sense. The same ambiguity applies to English usage. If I say, ‘from the house I saw him coming,’ I could have been inside the house or just outside the house when I saw him coming. Thus, one’s theology determines how one translates this passage.
“Latter-day Saints do not depend upon this passage to establish their belief in a literal resurrection, but point to it as one more glorious affirmation of it.” (“Job: ‘Yet Will I Trust in Him,’” p. 158.)
Perhaps this is the secret of Job’s perfection: he did not help only those who asked for his help; he sought out people to give help to.
As a king Job was obligated to defend those who relied on him for defense. For example, when Job found someone who had been plundered by robbers, he hunted down the thieves and used force, if necessary, to recover the stolen goods and restore them to their owner.
Job was not a Robin Hood, plundering one segment of society to provide for another. The only rich man he plundered was himself, and he did that freely. Commenting on Job’s righteousness. Clarke wrote:
“As supreme magistrate he chose out their way, adjusted their differences, and sat chief, presiding in all their civil assemblies.
“As captain general he dwelt as a king in the midst of his troops, preserving order and discipline, and seeing that his fellow soldiers were provided with requisites for their warfare, and the necessaries of life.
“As a man he did not think himself superior to the meanest offices in domestic life, to relieve or support his fellow creatures; he went about comforting the mourners—visiting the sick and afflicted, and ministering to their wants, and seeing that the wounded were properly attended. Noble Job! Look at him, ye nobles of the earth, ye lieutenants of counties, ye generals of armies, and ye lords of provinces. Look at JOB! Imitate his active benevolence, and be healthy and happy. Be as guardian angels in your particular districts, blessing all by your example and your bounty. Send your hunting horses to the plough, your game cocks to the dunghill; and at last live like men and Christians.” (Commentary, 3:132.)
This was not the Job of the ash heap and the boils; this was the great man of the East whom God called perfect (see Job 1:8).
Job 42:10 states that “the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.” Then, after listing double the number of livestock, the writer added: “He had also seven sons and three daughters” (v. 13; emphasis added). Originally Job had seven sons and three daughters. A doubling of his former blessings might suggest that he would then receive fourteen more sons and six more daughters, but instead he had just the original number restored to him. How could that be viewed as a doubling? C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch gave an answer that should have more meaning to Latter-day Saints than to anyone in the gentile world:
“The numbers of the stock of cattle [see Job 1:3] now appear doubled, but it is different with the children.
“Therefore, instead of [doubling] the seven sons and three daughters which he had, he receives just the same again, which is also so far a doubling, as deceased children also, according to the Old Testament view, are not absolutely lost [see 2 Samuel 12:23]. The author of this book, in everything to the most minute thing consistent, here gives us to understand that with men who die and depart from us the relation is different from that with things which we have lost.” (Commentary on the Old Testament, 4:2:390.)
|
|
Before Israel had even entered the promised land, Moses prophetically counseled them about establishing kings to rule over them. The instructions were clear: if the people ever chose to have a king, they must select someone who met certain criteria.
A king had to be—
1. One chosen by the Lord.
2. A member of the house of Israel and not a Gentile.
3. One who did not seek to “multiply horses” (a Hebrew idiom meaning to make extensive preparations for aggressive warfare).
4. One who would not lead Israel back to Egypt (back to their worldly ways).
5. One who would not multiply wives and wealth unto himself.
6. One who followed the law of God in ruling the people.
7. One who kept the statutes of God (see Deuteronomy 17:14–20; Mosiah 23:8; 29:13).
In the days of the prophet Samuel, the people rejected the rule of the judges and sought for a king to be their ruler. They forgot, however, what the Lord had directed them centuries before. They wanted a king such as other nations had so “that [Israel] also may be like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:20). Samuel warned them of the consequences of having a king such as this. He warned of military and civil service to the monarch and of the burden of taxation. (See 1 Samuel 8:9–18; Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel [religion 301, 2003], p. 271; Mosiah 29:21–23.) Nevertheless, Israel rejected the Lord as their rightful king (see 1 Samuel 8:7); so the Lord directed His prophet to provide them a king.
Saul was chosen as the first king, and under his leadership the foundations of the kingdom were laid. The land was united and greatly strengthened under the kingship of David. Finally, under Solomon, Israel reached its greatest glory and its greatest expansion. The first three kings of Israel achieved many significant things, but their worldly government cultivated the seeds of the destruction that was to come upon the nation. (See chapter 1 of this manual, “Solomon: Man of Wisdom, Man of Foolishness.”)
After the death of Solomon, a schism over taxation divided the nation into two kingdoms. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son and anointed successor, ruled over the Southern Kingdom, which was composed of the territory belonging to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The house of David continued to govern this nation until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. A newly proclaimed king, Jeroboam, ruled over the Northern Kingdom, called the kingdom of Israel, which was composed of the territory of the remaining ten tribes. Jeroboam was followed by a series of kings for the next two hundred years. In both the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms, the criteria established by the Lord was largely ignored, and both Israel and Judah reaped the sad results.
Jeroboam, an Ephraimite who had been a military leader in the army of Israel during Solomon’s reign, was rewarded for his accomplishments with a building project in the city of David. He was made an administrator over all the house of Joseph, that is, over the territorial districts of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, two of the most powerful tribes in Israel (see 1 Kings 11:26–28). Later, Ahijah, a prophet of that day, revealed to Jeroboam that he, Jeroboam, would become the ruler of the northern ten tribes (see 1 Kings 11:29–39).
Solomon, fearful of Jeroboam, sought his life. Jeroboam fled to Egypt, where he lived in exile until after Solomon’s death (see 1 Kings 11:40; 12:2–3). The people of the north called Jeroboam out of Egypt to lead their confrontation with Rehoboam, Solomon’s son (see 1 Kings 12).
As part of this rebellion, the northern people seceded from Judah and made Jeroboam their king. They became known as the kingdom of Israel, or the Northern Kingdom. This kingdom was often referred to as Ephraim, particularly by the prophets, because the tribe of Ephraim was a dominant power from the days of Joshua to the time of Jeroboam (see Numbers 13:3, 8; 14:6).
The capital of the Northern Kingdom was established first in Shechem and later in Samaria, both of which cities were located in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. Sometimes the names of these cities were used to mean the whole of the Northern Kingdom. (See Isaiah 7:1–9; Jeremiah 7:15; 31:9; Ezekiel 37:16–19; Hosea 4:17.)
With the power of kingship, Jeroboam established a state religion of idolatrous worship (see 1 Kings 12:25–33). The new nation never repented of this wickedness, which contributed to its downfall.
Twenty monarchs ruled the Northern Kingdom from its beginning until its destruction by the Assyrians. Five different family dynasties were set up in the Northern Kingdom, but all were short-lived, and all were ended by assassination or violence. Seven monarchs were murdered, and one committed suicide.
The scriptural record characterizes every ruler of the northern tribes as evil or wicked. Such prophets as Elijah, Elisha, Amos, and Hosea ministered in the Northern Kingdom during this period, calling on the kings and the people to repent. At the same time, the prophets of Judah, including Isaiah and Micah, also warned the people of the Northern Kingdom of their coming destruction if they did not repent.
The following list of the kings of Israel gives notes on their reigns and the prophets who were contemporary with them. The dates used are those generally accepted. They were adapted from Edwin R. Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings. Other chronologies may vary slightly from the one used here. The chronologies of the kings of both kingdoms and the correspondence between the reigns of the monarchs and the ministries of the prophets is shown in Maps.
Jeroboam I (931–909 B.C.). See 1 Kings 12:25–14:20. Introduced worship of idols. Corrupted the priestly offices for his new religion. The curse of idolatry remained with the Northern Kingdom until its fall (see 2 Kings 17:21–22).
Before Solomon’s death, Ahijah, the prophet from Shiloh, prophesied the coming division of the kingdom, stating that the Lord would give ten of the tribes to Jeroboam to rule over (see 1 Kings 11:28–40). Later, when Jeroboam became king, Ahijah prophesied that the king’s house would become extinct because Jeroboam encouraged idolatry (see 1 Kings 14:6–16).
Nadab (909–908 B.C.). See 1 Kings 15:25–31. Son of Jeroboam I. Assassinated by Baasha in a military revolt during an engagement with the Philistines.
Baasha (908–886 B.C.). See 1 Kings 15:32–16:7. Executed all the descendants of Jeroboam. Defeated by Asa, king of Judah, and by the Syrians.
The prophets Havani and Jehu prophesied during his reign.
Elah (886–885 B.C.). See 1 Kings 16:8–14. Son of Baasha. Assassinated by Zimri, one of his high military officers, who assumed the throne.
Zimri (885 B.C.). See 1 Kings 16:15–20. Ruled only seven days. Executed all the descendants of Baasha. Besieged by Omri, chief officer of the military. Committed suicide to avoid being captured alive.
Tibni (885 B.C.). See 1 Kings 16:21–22. Led part of the people against Omri. Was defeated by Omri, who gained control of the entire Northern Kingdom.
Omri (885–874 B.C.). See 1 Kings 16:23–28. Moved the capital to Samaria. Conquered the land of Moab and placed it under tribute.
Ahab (874–853 B.C.). See 1 Kings 16:29–22:40. Son of Omri. Married the Zidonian princess Jezebel and worshiped the idols of pagan neighbors. Joined as an ally with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, against the Syrians. Rejected the prophet Elijah. (During Ahab’s reign Elijah had the contest with the priests of Baal.) Finally entered an alliance with Syria against the invading Assyrians. Returned in league with Judah to fight Syria, who had rebelled against Israel. Was killed just as the battle was lost.
Ahaziah (853–852 B.C.). See 1 Kings 22:51 through 2 Kings 1:18. Son of Ahab. Opposed the revolt of Moab against Israel. Injured in a fall at the palace and sought blessing and direction of idol god.
The prophet Elijah’s prophecy of Ahaziah’s death was fulfilled. There were, evidently, numerous other prophets in the Northern Kingdom at the time. Jahaziel and Eliezer are two who are named (see 2 Chronicles 20:14, 37).
Joram/Jehoram (852–841 B.C.). See 2 Kings 3:1–8:15. Brother of Ahaziah. Forbade the worship of foreign gods but retained the idol worship instituted by Jeroboam. Joined in an alliance with Judah against Moab. Successfully held off Syrian attacks on the people of Israel. Was killed by Jehu in a bloody purge of the Omri dynasty.
Elisha received the mantle of the prophetic ministry from Elijah during this time (see 2 Kings 2:9–15).
Jehu (841–814 B.C.). See 2 Kings 9:1–10:36. Anointed king over Israel by a young prophet who acted under the direction of Elisha. Killed King Joram and mortally wounded King Ahaziah of Judah, Israel’s ally. Destroyed the descendants of Ahab and the remnants of foreign idol worship. Since there is no record of his violent death, it is assumed he was one of the few to die of natural causes.
Jehoahaz (814–798 B.C.). See 2 Kings 13:1–9. Son of Jehu. Surrendered the kingdom of Israel to the Syrian conquerors and paid tribute to them. Saw much of the nation’s military power destroyed.
Elisha’s ministry of about fifty years, begun in Joram’s reign, continued through the reign of Jehoahaz’s son Jehoash. Some scholars believe Joel’s ministry was also about this time.
Jehoash (798–782 B.C.). See 2 Kings 13:10–25. Son of Jehoahaz. Continued paying tribute to Syria. Freed Israel from tributary status and defeated the Syrians three times when a change of leadership in Syria and conquest there by the Assyrians brought war again between Syria and Israel.
Jeroboam II (792–753 B.C.). See 2 Kings 14:23–29. Son of Jehoash. Maintained Israel’s independence from Syrian control. Took part of the kingdom of Judah.
The ministry of Amos, who called on the kingdom of Israel to repent or face destruction, began about this time.
Zachariah (753 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:8–12. Son of Jeroboam II. Was the last king of the lengthy dynasty of Jehu. Assassinated by his successor after only six months on the throne.
The ministry of Hosea began about this time and continued until the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C.
Shallum (752 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:13–15. Assassinated by Menahem, his successor, after only one month as king.
Menahem (752–742 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:16–22. Brutally murdered the pregnant women in the cities that refused to support him as king. Controlled by the Assyrians under Pul (Tiglath-pileser IV), who placed Israel under heavy tribute.
Pekahiah (742–740 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:23–26. Son of Menahem. Was assassinated by Pekah, a military leader. About this time Isaiah began his ministry in the kingdom of Judah, although much of what he said was directed at Israel as well.
Pekah (740–732 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:27–31. Formed an alliance with Syria against Assyria. Threatened and, with Syria, finally attacked Judah but with limited success. Attacked by the Assyrians. Lost all of Galilee, whose inhabitants were exiled to Assyria. Was assassinated by Hoshea, his successor.
Hoshea (732–722 B.C.). See 2 Kings 17:1–23. Surrendered to the Assyrians and agreed to pay heavy tribute. Sought the aid of Egypt against the Assyrians to relieve the heavy burden. This intrigue resulted in a three year siege of the Northern Kingdom and the collapse of Israel. The Assyrians sent into exile most of the people of Israel.
The captivity of the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom eventually ended in their escape into the north countries and their becoming known as the lost tribes (see Enrichment D).
|
|
|
The contemporary kingdoms of Israel, Judah, and Assyria |
When Rehoboam was anointed king to succeed his father Solomon (see 1 Kings 11:43), a political crisis was developing because of severe economic problems caused by excessive government building, particularly for the military but also for the royal household. Rehoboam had to go to Shechem, the power center of the north, to attempt to obtain the support of the northern tribes. The leaders of the people sought for assurance that relief from heavy taxation would be forthcoming. Being ill-advised by inexperienced, power-seeking aides, King Rehoboam refused any relief and even threatened further increases. (See 1 Kings 12:1–11.) The northern tribes then refused to uphold him as king. They revolted against the attempted enforcement of the king’s decrees and formed their own nation with Jeroboam as their new king. (See 1 Kings 12:12–20.)
The tribe of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, the smallest and weakest tribe, as well as the closest territorial neighbor to the capital, Jerusalem, supported Rehoboam and together formed the kingdom of Judah (see 1 Kings 12:21–24; 2 Chronicles 11:1–4, 12, 23). Through the years that followed, many members of other tribes migrated to the Southern Kingdom and became a part of the nation of Judah. Specific mention is made of Levi (see 2 Chronicles 11:13–17), Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon (see 2 Chronicles 15:9).
It had been prophetically declared that Judah would remain under the control of the house of David (see 1 Kings 11:13, 32). The prophecy was fulfilled, for David’s royal line retained the throne throughout Judah’s existence as a nation. One attempt to move the kingship to another family through the actions of the wife of one of the kings was thwarted, and the family rule was preserved. (The genealogy of the kings of Judah is shown in the chart at the end of this enrichment section.)
Of the twenty rulers who reigned over Judah from the death of Solomon to the fall of Jerusalem and the Jews’ captivity and exile at the hands of the Babylonians, twelve are characterized in the scriptural record as evil or wicked. Only four advanced their nation economically and religiously. As in the north, numerous prophets were called to cry repentance to Judah, including Micaiah, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Lehi, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
Rehoboam (931–913 B.C.). See 1 Kings 12:1–24; 14:21–31; 2 Chronicles 9:31–12:16. Permitted idolatrous practices to be established in the land. Was defeated by Shishak (Sheshonk I of the Twenty-second Dynasty of the Pharaohs of Egypt), who pillaged the temple and palaces of Judah. Fought with Israel throughout his reign.
Abijam/Abijah (913–910 B.C.). See 1 Kings 15:1–8; 2 Chronicles 13:1–22. Son of Rehoboam. Warred against Israel. Defeated a number of cities of the Northern Kingdom and brought them under the control of Judah.
Asa (911–869 B.C.). See 1 Kings 15:9–24; 2 Chronicles 14:1–16:14. Son of Abijam. Began religious reform in the nation with the encouragement of Ahijah the prophet. Destroyed the idols of the people of Judah and banned idolatrous worship. Was attacked by Baasha of Israel but defeated him. Withstood the attack of an Ethiopian force. Allied with Syria late in his reign against further attacks from Israel. Because of his sickness, three years before his death he appointed his son Jehoshaphat to reign jointly with him.
Jehoshaphat (870–848 B.C.). See 1 Kings 22:41–50; 2 Chronicles 17:1–20:37. Son of Asa. Ruled jointly with his father for three years before becoming king. Strengthened military fortifications in the kingdom and promoted further religious reform. Established instructional programs directed by the priesthood. Received tribute from the Philistines and Arabians as a guarantee of peace because of Judah’s great military presence as a nation. Joined in an alliance with King Ahab of Israel against the Syrians. King Ahab was killed in the war, but the Syrians were defeated. The marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram to Ahab’s daughter Athaliah promoted idolatrous worship and eventually threatened the continuation of David’s line on the throne of Judah. Established a system of religious and civil courts. Miraculously withstood an attack from the Ammonites and their allies. Continued the alliance with Israel in an attempt to jointly establish ships for trade, but the venture failed.
Elijah’s ministry, though primarily in the Northern Kingdom, took place during Jehoshaphat’s reign.
Jehoram (848–841 B.C.). See 2 Kings 8:16–24; 2 Chronicles 21. Firstborn of Jehoshaphat. Became king and ruled jointly during his father’s last years as king. Killed his brothers to obtain their wealth and secure the throne after he became the sole ruler. Allowed his idolatrous wife to promote the evil religious practices of Israel in Judah. Withstood a rebellion by the Edomites, who had been a tributary state since the days of David and Solomon. Prevented an Edomite attack on Judah but could not regain control of Edom. Attacked by the Philistines and Arabians, who sacked the capital and destroyed the king’s house and family. His people refused him a royal burial.
Ahaziah (841 B.C.). See 2 Kings 8:25–29; 9:27–29; 2 Chronicles 22:1–9. Son of Jehoram. Influenced by his mother, Athaliah, daughter of Ahab of Israel, to follow the idol worship of the north. Allied with Jehoram, his cousin, the king of Israel, against the Syrians. Visited Jehoram of Israel at his palace in Samaria when Jehoram was wounded in the war with Syria. Killed while in Samaria during the coup executed by Jehu, a military leader in Israel who had been anointed king by Elisha the prophet. Jehoram of Israel was assassinated in the same coup.
Athaliah (841–835 B.C.). See 2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22:10–23:21. Mother of Ahaziah and daughter of Ahab of Israel. Sought to establish the house of Ahab (of the Northern Kingdom) on the throne of Judah. Ordered her own grandchildren killed to seize the throne for herself. A righteous priest rescued the youngest heir, however, and hid him in the temple. After a number of years this religious leader organized a revolt. Queen Athaliah was put to death, and her grandson Joash was upheld as king of Judah.
Joash/Jehoash (835–796 B.C.). See 2 Kings 12; 2 Chronicles 24. Son of Ahaziah. Supported the priesthood and renewed the worship of Jehovah. Repaired the temple. Turned to idolatrous worship after the death of the leading priest, who had saved his life and his throne. Murdered his cousin Zechariah, who was a prophet raised up by God to call the people to repentance (see 2 Chronicles 22:10–11; 24:20–21). Was severely wounded in an attack on Judah by the Syrians. Gave tribute from the treasures and sacred furnishings of the temple to the Syrians to secure the safety of his people. Was assassinated by his own servants for his wicked deeds, especially those against the priestly family that had preserved his life.
Amaziah (796–767 B.C.). See 2 Kings 14:1–22; 2 Chronicles 25. Son of Joash. Prepared his people and led them victoriously against their long-time enemies, the Edomites, who had been weakened by Assyrian attacks. Reestablished the worship of idols among the people of Judah. Challenged the kingdom of Israel for power and was defeated. As had been prophesied, Jerusalem’s walls were partially destroyed and the temple ransacked. Because of that destruction, an insurrection arose against Amaziah. Fled to Lachish for safety but was discovered and put to death.
Azariah/Uzziah (767–740 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:1–7; 2 Chronicles 26. Son of Amaziah. Became king at the age of sixteen and reigned for a total of fifty-two years, jointly occupying the throne with his father for over twenty years. Strengthened the nation of Judah. Sought to obey God in his early years but could not purge the land of idolatry. Destroyed the Philistine strongholds and controlled the Philistines and the Arabians. Received tribute from the country of Ammon, which recognized Judah’s strength. Built up the defenses of Jerusalem and established a large military force. Unlawfully entered the sanctuary of the temple to officiate in priestly rites and was afflicted of the Lord with leprosy for his presumptuous act. Lived in isolation until his death. Ruled jointly with his son Jotham for the last ten years of his life.
Jotham (740–732 B.C.). See 2 Kings 15:32–38; 2 Chronicles 27. Son of Azariah. Continued to strengthen the fortifications of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. Constructed an addition to the temple complex. Put down a rebellion of the Ammonites when they attempted to free themselves from being a tribute state. Ruled in righteousness all his days, but idolatry continued among the people.
Ahaz (732–715 B.C.). See 2 Kings 16; 2 Chronicles 28. Son of Jotham. Ruled jointly with his father for four years. Encouraged Judah to engage in idolatrous worship after the death of his father. Even offered human sacrifice by burning his own children. Warned by the prophet Isaiah of the consequences of doing this evil deed, but refused to follow Isaiah’s counsel. Defeated by the alliance of Israel under King Pekah and Syria. Thousands of his people were taken captive into the Northern Kingdom, though they were later released at the request of the prophet Oded. Attacked by the Edomites and Philistines, who gained control of some villages. Finally sought aid from Assyria. Became an Assyrian vassal, paying high tribute. Sacrificed to the Assyrian gods, desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, and gave of its sacred treasures to the Assyrians. Established places of idol worship throughout Judah. Was refused a royal burial by the people at the time of his death.
The prophet Micah’s ministry continued through Ahaz’s reign and into the reign of Hezekiah.
Hezekiah (715–686 B.C.). See 2 Kings 18:1–20:21; 2 Chronicles 29:1–32:33. Instituted religious reforms and restored the temple to the worship of Jehovah. Destroyed the brazen serpent Moses had made because the people misused it as an object to be worshiped. Besieged in the fourteenth year of his reign by the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib, the successor of Sargon II. Repaired Jerusalem’s defenses and constructed a water tunnel for the security of the city. Sought help from the Lord on this occasion, and Judah was miraculously delivered from the invading Assyrians as Isaiah had predicted. Became very sick, but his pleading with the Lord brought him a blessing through Isaiah that lengthened his days of kingship. Ruled in goodness until his death.
Manasseh (686–642 B.C.). See 2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chronicles 33:1–20. Son of Hezekiah. Ruled jointly with his father for eleven years because of his father’s illness and to prepare himself to govern the people. Continued Judah’s tributary status with Assyria. Rebuilt all the idolatrous places his father had destroyed. Placed idols in the temple in Jerusalem and offered his children in human sacrifice. Was responsible for the shedding of much innocent blood.
Numerous prophets labored with this wicked king to no avail, and he killed several of them. Tradition says he martyred Isaiah. The Assyrians took Manasseh hostage for a time. Upon his return he restored the temple and repaired the city walls.
Amon (642–640 B.C.). See 2 Kings 21:19–26; 2 Chronicles 33:21–24. Son of Manasseh. Turned to all the wicked practices of his father and was assassinated by his own servants.
It was probably during this time that Nahum prophesied.
Josiah (640–609 B.C.). See 2 Kings 22–23:30; 2 Chronicles 33:25–35:27. Son of Amon. Was upheld by the people as king at the age of eight years. Turned his heart continually to the Lord as he grew. Purged the land of idolatrous practices and sanctuaries. Renovated and restored the temple. Discovered sacred records in the temple during its renovation. Established religious reform and administered by covenant to the people.
Although outward changes came to the kingdom, it was prophesied that Judah would be spared until after Josiah’s day. Assyria fell to Babylonia, and Judah was freed from tribute. The Egyptians, however, were allied with Babylonia and marched through Judah to assist with the conquest. Josiah attempted to stop the Egyptians but was defeated in the process and died of wounds received in the battle at Megiddo. Judah then became a vassal of Egypt.
Zephaniah, and probably Nahum, prophesied during the early years of Josiah’s reign. Lehi was living in the land of Jerusalem about that time. Jeremiah’s ministry began in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign (see Jeremiah 1:1–2), and Habakkuk seems to have prophesied shortly after Josiah’s reign ended.
Jehoahaz (609 B.C.). See 2 Kings 23:31–33; 2 Chronicles 36:1–4. Son of Josiah. Reigned only three months. Removed from office and exiled to Egypt where he later died. His half brother was made the new ruler.
Eliakim/Jehoiakim (609–597 B.C.). See 2 Kings 23:34–24:7; 2 Chronicles 36:5–8. Son of Josiah. Chosen by the Egyptians to replace his half brother as king. Was forced to change his name to Jehoiakim and pay tribute to Egypt. Taxed the people very heavily to fulfill this obligation. Was attacked by the Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites. Was as wicked as Manasseh, his great-grandfather, and was responsible for the shedding of much innocent blood. Became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. when the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians. Gave the vessels from the temple as tribute to the conquering Babylonians, and sent a group of royal and noble families as exiles to the master nation. (Daniel was among that group.) Rebelled against Babylonia after three years of vassalage, and was taken captive by the Babylonians. Apparently killed while on his way to Babylon (see reading block 19-16).
Jehoiachin (597 B.C.). See 2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10. Son of Eliakim/Jehoiakim. Continued to resist the Babylonians but surrendered within months of his ascension. Went to Babylon as a hostage together with political and religious leaders, skilled craftsmen, and educated people, as well as the treasure of the temple. Among those exiled were many of the Levites. Ezekiel was a part of this group. This was the first major deportation of Judah into Babylon.
Zedekiah/Mattaniah (597–587 B.C.). See 2 Kings 24:18 through 25:26; 2 Chronicles 36:11–21. Brother of Jehoahaz and half brother of Eliakim/Jehoiakim. Established as king by the Babylonians, who changed his name to Zedekiah. Showed loyalty at first to Babylonia, but later rebelled at the encouragement of those who preferred an alliance with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar finally sent his forces against Judah, destroying the temples, palaces, and city proper of Jerusalem. Most of the people were then exiled to Babylon, and the kingdom of Judah became only a memory. During the first year of Zedekiah’s reign Lehi prophesied and was then told to flee from Jerusalem (see 1 Nephi 1:4, 2:2). During the terrible times at the end of his reign, Zedekiah imprisoned Jeremiah for prophesying of the impending destruction of Judah.
The fall of Judah and the exile in Babylon began another era in the history of the Lord’s people. For a more complete historical view of this captivity, see Enrichment G. The period of exile and the experiences of Judah during this period of time are treated in Enrichment H.
|
|
|
The house of David |
