p. 4 | J. O. CORLISS by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 31, 1910

J. O. CORLISS

By J. O. Corliss

The History of the Hebrew Sanctuary — No. 10

J. O. CORLISS

Its Rival Institutions

THERE occurs one significant statement regarding Solomon, which leads one to suspect that the separation of the ark from the sanctuary, in the days of Eli, had brought to all Israel a waning respect for the original service of the tabernacle set up by Moses. Although the record testifies that Solomon took for a wife the daughter of Pharaoh, it is careful to state that he “loved the Lord,” and then adds, “Only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places.” 1 Kings 3:1-3. Gibeon, where the arkless sanctuary stood, being considered the great “high place,” more offerings were made there than upon other altars (verse 4), but the people in general considered it proper to sacrifice in various “high places,” because, the ark being absent from Gibeon, they felt that they had no house in which the “name of the Lord” was found.

This lack, however, was to be supplied in the building of the temple. But though Solomon assiduously labored to provide a “house” for the name of the Lord, yet, notwithstanding the foremost part he acted at its dedication, it is doubtful if he or the Hebrew people ever fully appreciated God’s intent in having such a place prepared. Had the king done so, he could not have taken into his household and bosom so many heathen women from among the Egyptians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites, who were sure to estrange his heart from God and his worship. Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3, 4; 1 Kings 11:1-8.

So far, indeed, was the heart of the king alienated from God that he built “high places” for the worship of the gods of his wives. “In the hill that is before Jerusalem,” that is, on the prominent heights of Olivet, over against the royal gardens, were three sanctuary altars, one on each of its three distinct summits, dedicated respectively to Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the war-god of Moab, and Milcom, or Molech, the “divine king” of the Ammonites. 2 Kings 23:13.

So licentious and brutal were the rites practised at these altars, that they fastened an odious name upon the entire hill; namely, “the mount of corruption,” or offense. This appellation, together with the name “Olivet,” was retained by the entire famous eminence until the Christian era, when the shady name was confined to the most southern peak of the range.

The depraved morals thus introduced, could not fail to leave their mark upon Solomon’s administration, upon which he entered so auspiciously. True, little detail of the king’s changed policy is noted by inspiration, but enough is given to show that the love and esteem in which he was held at first perceptibly waned before his death. A “grievous service” and “heavy yoke” of taxation rapidly followed the king’s departure from the true worship, and when this was resisted, the people were “chastened” with whips, until they chafed to the point of rebellion. 1 Kings 12:11.

But this was not the full extent of calamity to the Hebrew empire. The storm destined to overthrow the kingdom was first shown in the revolt of the chiefs of Edom and Syria, who had formerly been subject to Israel. 1 Kings 11:14, 23. Another serious problem was

the act of Jeroboam, an immediate subject who “lifted up his hand against the king.” Verse 26.

However, the worst was yet to come; the darkest cloud was about to cast its shadow over the fair domain of Israel. Solomon had given no visible encouragement during his reign to the prophetic gift. Of the prophet Nathan, Solomon’s early tutor, nothing is recorded following the king’s coronation. His two sons, Azariah and Zabud, were distinguished officers at the royal court (1 Kings 4:5), but no word of counsel from heaven came through Nathan himself.

The only prophet mentioned as giving any divine instruction in Solomon’s reign, is Ahijah, of Shiloh. It was he who met Jeroboam in the field and predicted the rending of Israel, and the crowning of Jeroboam king over the ten tribes. 1 Kings 11:29-38. This was a significant token of the greatest calamity of the age—no word of comfort from God’s chosen messengers to the king. Such an attempt would have been useless indeed, since the king’s heart had gone after heathen gods. In this the wisdom of Solomon was turned into folly. The promise of his youth was overcast by passion. His early justice became tyranny, and his first prosperity wrought his ruin. Had he craved God’s counsel in his later reign, all this might have been saved through the voice of the prophet; but alas, for the environments of passion’s choice! Godliness was sacrificed on the king’s part, and an influence exerted that carried ruin to all the northern tribes of Palestine. But the study of that phase of the subject must be reserved for a following paper.

Mountain View, Cal.