Earlier text: General ArticlesWhen Was the New Testament Written?
By Alonzo T. Jones
We propose to give some facts of history, showing the fulfillment of the lines of prophecy of the Scriptures; but before entering upon that subject, direct, we have thought best to present some facts which show the times when the prophetic books were written. We propose to deal in facts; we shall have very little to do with mere opinions. It is a fact that the Bible exists to-day. It is also a fact that books are written in opposition to it. These things none can deny. It is equally undeniable that nearly one hundred years ago Thomas Paine wrote a book against the Bible, which proves that the identical Bible which is in existence to-day was in existence then. About three hundred and sixty-five years ago, Luther in Germany, Zwingle in Switzerland, and Faber in France, each and all opposed the corruption of the church of Rome, and this opposition was based wholly upon the Bible. The Bible was preached, it was translated, it was printed and distributed in great numbers. It cannot be denied that the Bible was in existence then. We can go back nearly two hundred years further, and Wycliffe in England had a Bible, expounded it to the people, exhorted them to study it for themselves, and even translated it into the English language. But, not to be tedious, we will at once go back more than fifteen hundred years, to A. D. 331-361. Julian was emperor of the Roman empire, and wrote in opposition to Christianity, and of course opposed the doctrines of the New Testament. But he never pretended to "deny the truth of the gospel history, as a history, though he denied the deity of Jesus Christ asserted in the writings of the evangelists; he acknowledged the principal facts in the gospel as well as the miracles of our Saviour and his apostles." He mentioned Matthew and Luke by name, and presented the objection to the genealogy of Christ as given by them, that is urged to this day. "He recited the sayings of Christ in the very words of the evangelists; he also bore testimony that the gospel of John was composed later than the other evangelists, and at a time when great numbers were converted to the Christian faith both in Italy and Greece, and alluded oftener than once to the facts recorded in the Acts of the Apostles." "He expressly states the early dates of these records; he calls them by the names which they now bear. He all along supposes, he nowhere questions, their genuineness or authenticity; nor does he give even the slightest intimation that he suspected the whole or any part of them to be forgeries."—Horne's Introduction, vol. 1, chap. 2, sec. 2. This, being "testimony from an enemy, is the strongest kind of evidence" in favor of the New Testament, and proves that it was in existence in A. D. 331. But we have more of the same kind. One hundred years before Julian, A. D. 233, lived Porphyry, "the most sensible as well as the most severe adversary of the Christian religion that antiquity can produce." "He had conversed with the Christians in Tyre, in Sicily, and in Rome." "He was of all the adversaries of the Christian religion the best qualified for inquiring into the authenticity of the sacred writings. He possessed every advantage which natural abilities or political situation could afford, to discover whether the New Testament was a genuine work of the apostles and evangelists, or whether it was imposed upon the world after the decease of its pretended authors. But no trace of this suspicion is anywhere to be found, nor did it ever occur to Porphyry to suppose that it was spurious. He did not deny the truth of the gospel history, but actually considered the miracles of Jesus Christ as real facts." He also notices the difference between Paul and Peter in Gal. 2:11. But the objections of Porphyry were not confined to the New Testament; he attacked the Old Testament also, especially the prophecy of Daniel, declaring that it was written "after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes."—Horne's Introduction, vol. 1, chap. 2, sec. 2; and Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century, by Principal Cairns, Lecture 1, sec. 3. This proves that the Bible was extensively known as far back as A. D. 233; for how could a man write in opposition to a thing that did not exist? But we may go back sixty years further, to A. D. 176, or thereabouts, and we find Celsus, another "infidel writer, and one of the greatest enemies with whom Christianity had to contend. He not only mentions by name, but quotes passages from, the books of the New Testament, so that we know that we have the identical books to which he referred." "The miraculous conception is mentioned with a view of accusing the Virgin Mary of adultery; we also recognize Joseph's intention of putting her away, and the consequent appearance of the angel warning him in a dream to take her as his wife; we meet with a reference to the star that was seen at his birth, and the adoration paid to the new-born Saviour by the Magi at Bethlehem; the murder of the infants by Herod, in consequence of his being deceived by the wise men, is noticed, as also the reappearance of the angel to Joseph, and his consequent flight into Egypt. Here, then, are references to all the facts of our Saviour's birth. Again, we are informed of the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice from Heaven at the baptism of our Saviour in Jordan; we hear also of the temptation in the wilderness; we are told that Christ was constantly attended by a certain number of disciples, though the number is not correct. There is an allusion to our Saviour's conversation with the woman of Samaria at the well; and a reference, less distinct, to the attempt of the people of Nazareth to throw him down the rock on which their city was built. Here, therefore, is ample testimony to his baptism and the facts immediately following it." He "also pretends to believe in the miracles of Christ; and those of healing the sick, feeding the five thousand men, and raising the dead, are expressly mentioned, though they are attributed to magical influence. Several passages also in our Saviour's sermon on the mount, are quoted verbatim, and his predictions relating to his sufferings, death, and resurrection are recorded. Nor are the closing scenes of the life of the Saviour noticed with less exactness. We meet with the treachery of Judas, and Peter's denial of his Master; we are informed that Christ was bound, insulted, beaten with rods, and crucified, we read of the gall which was given him to eat, and vinegar to drink; and we are insulted with an unfeeling jest upon the blood and water that flowed from our dying Redeemer's side. He mentions some words which were uttered by Christ upon the cross, and alludes to the earthquake and darkness that immediately followed the crucifixion. There is also mention made of the appearance of the angels at the sepulcher, and of the manifestation of Christ to Mary Magdalene and the disciples, after his resurrection." "The difficulty of one angel or two," at the tomb, "is noticed." "Jesus is reproached for needing to have the stone rolled away by an angel." Now he says, "These things are from your own writings, as to which we need no other evidence, for you fall by your own authority."—Horne's Introduction, vol. 1, chap. 2, sec. 2; and Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century, by Principal Cairns, Lecture 1, sec. 3. There can certainly be no controversy about the existence of the New Testament in the times of Julian, Porphyry, and Celsus, and, as has been remarked, not one of these able writers pretended to call in question the authenticity of the records of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It would be just as reasonable for us to-day to deny the facts of the Reformation by Luther, as to expect that Julian should deny the existence of the records of the ministry of Jesus; just as reasonable for us to-day to deny the facts of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers, as to suppose that Porphyry could deny the faithfulness of the New Testament history. Just as wisely could we reject all the evidences of the American Revolution, as to suppose that Celsus could reject the evidences of the life of Jesus in the world. It would certainly be the supremest folly for any man to deny the reality of any one of these three world-stirring events. Just as supremely foolish would it have been for any of these three men to deny the event that was then moving the world as it had never been moved. An event the results of which were threatening the very existence of the empire of Julian as it had existed for hundreds of years, could not well be denied. Each of these men, more especially Celsus, had ample means and ability, and the will also, to disprove the authenticity of these sacred records, had it been possible; and the very fact that not one of them even pretended to attempt any such thing, proves that that thing was impossible. We will close this paragraph with Principal Cairn's closing observation on Celsus, before quoted. He says:— "His testimony here is evidently of the greatest weight; and his position, as at once an immediately succeeding writer and an enemy, gives the gospels a recognition which could have come from no other quarter, even from later unbelief in the earlier centuries. It is impossible for modern unbelief to shake this foundation, or to resolve those materials which Celsus has attested as so solid and documentary, into the mist and vapor of shifting tradition. What he assails is not a cloud, but a fortress well defined, and the mark of studied attack and siege. It is too late now to obliterate his lines and parallels, which have even been added to the intrenchments against which they were directed." As the last, but not by any means as the least authority in confirmation of the early date of the New Testament, we introduce Gibbon, the prince of historians. He says:—
"The Christian Revelation was consummated under the reign of Nerva."—Decline and Fall, chap. 21, sec. 7. This indisputable authority carries us back beyond Celsus sixty years, for the reign of Nerva began in A. D. 96 and ended in A. D. 98. Here is a chain of authorities, not a single link of which can be broken, which, taken together, prove to an absolute certainty that the New Testament was written at the time when it claims to have been written. So much for the New Testament. Now for the Old.
A. T. J. The Decline of Family Prayer
It is commonly reported that family prayer is to-day in the homes of church-members the exception, not the rule. It is said that the statistics in this matter, in this or that congregation, if gathered would be appalling. Preachers, in reporting success in the gospel, are seen stating that they prevailed on one or two families to erect a family altar. There have been reports about the lack of religious training in homes—no Lois nor Eunice to gather the boy Timothy nowadays to her side, and instruct him in the sacred writings; no Joshua to confess aloud, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord;" no voice of parents to teach the child the way of God, when either sitting down or rising up. It is now the climax of these adverse facts that not even the simple form of family prayer is observed. Whether these be wholly or only half true, let us face them, and study them, and see where we stand as to this important matter in our households. What have we to learn, what have we to purpose, what have we to do about it?—Sel. FORCE of character is one of the world's virtues; the market honors it, but the church knows it not. It is esteemed in the factory and the counting-room, but is not preached in the pulpit nor praised in the press, and is deprecated and discouraged in the nursery and the school-room. It is an inconvenient virtue in children; but it makes a sterling manhood. It is the power in life which translates thoughts into deeds, ideas into achievements. Imagination thinks things; grit does them. Imagination fashions its statuette of clay with ease; but life is not clay, it is marble; grit, with mallet and chisel, turns the block into the statue. Grit is the power in every profession. It makes the difference between the declaimer and the orator. The former wins our admiration, the latter compels our conviction. His rhetoric may be faulty, his logic defective, his scholarship poor, his grammar lame, and even his conclusions untenable—but he carries us with him in spite of ourselves, nor is it until we have escaped the mastery of his presence that we are able to reconsider and reverse our verdict. It makes the difference between the politician and the statesman. The one studies the tides, and comes in and goes out with them, when his almanac does not make a mistake; the other pushes his way to his predetermined port, with the tide or against it, as chance may have it. Ebb-tide or flood-tide, he gets there all the same—in time. It makes the difference between the bookkeeper and the man of business. The one is the servant of figures, the other is their master; the one interprets events, the other makes them. It is the common trait of all the men of destiny in the world's history; Erasmus was a better scholar than Luther; Luther's grit was Luther's genius. It is grit that gives leadership. Men are like the figure naughts; put one or a dozen of them together; and they are still naught. The man of grit is a unit of value; put him at the head of the column, and the two naughts become a hundred, the five naughts a hundred thousand. The man of grit, like the blooded horse, carries his whip and spur in his own veins. At the heart of every great enterprise—industrial, philanthropic, political, missionary—you will find somewhere a man of grit; but usually in the singular, not the plural, number. Unpraised grace though it be, yet every Bible hero had it. It required grit in Abraham to disregard the advice of wise men, the sneer of foolish ones, and the expostulations of friendly ones, and abandon his native land, the first pilgrim father, to go in search not only of a new home, but of a new religion. It required grit in Joseph to profess his religion before the court of Pharaoh, and before all his priests: "It is not in me; God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace;" and in Moses to abandon the path to promotion and put himself at the head of a despised and despicable people; and in David to disregard the sneers of his brethren, and the stolid stare of the army, and the failure of Saul's armor, and hazard the disgrace of failure more bitter than death to a sensitive soul; and in Paul to keep up the spirits of ship's company and crew, the only undespairing soul among them, during those fourteen days of tempest. Grit is a feminine virtue as well as a masculine one. A strong-minded woman is bad enough, but a weak-minded woman is worse. She who possesses this virtue rules her children; she who lacks it is their nursemaid, not their mother. Grit is translated into achievement by man, into endurance by woman. Her task is the harder of the two. The easiest way to get any grace is to inherit it; but grit, like every other grace, can be cultivated. A robust frame is a great help to a robust nature; broad shoulders and a good digestion are means of grace. But they are only means, they are not the grace itself. Athletism is not grit. Grit is spiritual, not physical, and the man of grit always "keeps his soul on top." The epicure, the dude, and the dandy are never men of true grit. The hero may disregard his body, but he cannot be subject to it. General Gordon's favorite dinner in London was bread and milk; General Grant shared in camp the rations of the soldier. If we should advise the high liver to go and cut his throat, our readers would exclaim against our barbarism. So we will only quote a wise man who once gave that advice: "When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee; and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite." It takes something of a Spartan diet to give a Spartan courage. The man of grit always has a purpose; and generally the higher the purpose the more unflinching the grit. An aspiring author once asked Horace Greeley for advice how to write for the newspapers. "Have something to say, and then say it," was the laconic reply. Have something to do, and then do it, might pass for a definition of grit. A good many young men of good parts lack of "doing it" because they have never really settled on anything to do. Hundreds of young men graduate from school or college. Commencement! To how many of them is the word meaningless; how many have any clear idea of what they mean to commence when they step out of school into life? The man of grit is always a man of hope. He believes in his mission, and in its ultimate success. He is therefore a man of faith; not always intelligent faith in God, perhaps only a superstitious faith in his star or his luck, or a purely terrestrial faith in laws and principles. But he always sees an end from the beginning, and blazes his way through the woods, singing, because he knows where he wants to go and expects to get there. The grace of grit is an unpraised grace; more's the pity. It were well to teach it in our churches and develop it in our schools. Peter put it next to faith. Add to your faith virtue, said he. The modern equivalent for virtue is grit.—Christian Union. Theater-Going.
By S. S. Times
A NEW YORK correspondent wants a little more light on the question of theater-going. He writes:— “I have been for a long time a teacher of boys and youth in the Sunday-school, yet I find myself unable to give satisfactory answers to some of the questions referred to me. That about the theater is, perhaps, one of the worst; since you have made the matter of card-playing so clear to my mind, I have ventured to ask if you will, through your column of ‘Notes on Open Letters,’ kindly help me in an answer to the following question from a Christian young man. ‘When I am away from home on short business trips, and a guest, for the time, of theater-going people,—men with whom I am more or less associated in business,—is it right for me to accept of an invitation to accompany them to places of amusement which they consider perfectly proper, and where I might offend were I to decline?’ Your opinion of the above matter will be a great help to a constant reader of the Sunday-School Times.” Back of the immediate question here presented, as to our duty while visiting those who are theater-goers, is the question of the right or wrong of the theater itself. If, as we believe, the theater itself has no right of existence, then it is not right to sustain the theater by our presence. Our objection to the theater is not primarily to the theater as it is now managed, but to the theater at its best. We object even to the ideal theater; to the theater as it might be under the purest Christian management,—and the actual theater, it will be admitted by all, is no improvement on the best theater imaginable. To those who take this view of the theater, there is no question concerning theater-going under any circumstances. And as to the matter of giving offense by over-strictness, there is one hundred times the danger of lowering ourselves in the estimation of others by over-laxity at just such points as this. Men of the world want men of the church to have a high standard, and to stick to it. The Christian minister or the Christian layman who goes to the theater, or who plays cards, or who dances, or who drinks wine, or who uses tobacco, is sure to lower himself thereby in the estimate of those who do the same things, whatever may be the effect of his example in this line on those whose practice is different from his own. Never fear that you will lose influence for good by being positive and unbending at a point of principle or of practice, where there are two opinions as to the right or wrong of the case.—S. S. Times. Skill in Gospel Work.
By George B. Gow
THERE are many in our churches who have no skill in gospel work, many who have a little skill in some kinds of work, and only a few comparatively who have much skill in many kinds of work. It requires much time and effort, and the loss of many things which selfish human nature greatly prizes, to acquire such varied skill. Many do not think it necessary to acquire skill in gospel work. They look upon religion as an experience to be saved by, not a life of devotion in the service of Christ. They drift on through life, cherishing a hope of Heaven, eager for the things of this world, but never eager for work in the kingdom of Christ. They have no such love of the service of Christ as will bear the cost of acquiring skill in it. The degree of skill which men can acquire in Christian work is greatly varied. The native gifts of men for such work greatly differ. But the work, too, is varied, and there is no one who has the faith, love, and knowledge of a true disciple who cannot acquire a good degree of skill in many kinds of Christian work. Any disciple, however small or few his native gifts, who, constrained by love, sets himself to acquire the knowledge and skill necessary for gospel work, seeking the counsel of the church, its pastors and elders, patient and persistent in endeavor, burning with zeal, but humble and prudent, willing to be instructed in ways and means, will acquire a high degree of skill in many kinds of gospel work. The great majority of Christian workers are not persons of special or extraordinary gifts. Their ability comes from practice in the work to which love constrained them. By patient and persistent trying, they have learned what to do and how to do it. What the churches need is not greater natural talents, but persons whose love of work has made them skillful. It is the few of this sort who are the strength of the churches, a handful in each church.—Geo. B. Gow. The Lesson of Contentment
"I HAVE learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." And that is a great lesson to learn. Contentment is, in itself, a condition of being, rather than a consequence of having. It results from what a man is in himself, or in his relation to God; not from what he has, nor from where he is. The man who has contentment in one sphere, is pretty apt to have contentment in any sphere; and the one who is discontented in any place, is pretty sure to be discontented wherever he is. Contentment depends on what is within the man, rather than on what is around him—outside. So, if any of us are discontented, we may know that no added possessions, no change of circumstances, would in themselves give us contentment; what we need is to be different, not to have things different.—Sel. Ahab’s Reign and Elijah’s Ministry
Ahab's reign occupies all the rest of the first book of Kings. It owes this distinction to the ministry of the great prophet Elijah. It may be that "every age thinks itself a crisis," but no one can fail to see that this was one of the veritable turning-points of Jewish history. One of the real "decisive battles of the world,"—that between the Lord and Baal,—was then fought out. No wonder that the historian felt constrained to chronicle at length the transactions of a reign so pregnant both with good and evil for the people of the Lord, and for the faith with which they had been put in trust. "He reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal." Besides this altar, Ahab erected a column or pillar (2 Kings 10:27) in the temple of Baal. This house was large enough to contain an immense throng of worshipers. It stood423apparently within a great walled inclosure, and rose in such strength as to seem like a castle. A huge image of the sun-god, flanked by idolatrous symbols, was seen within, amidst a blaze of splendor, reflected from gilded and painted roofs, and walls, and columns. A staff of 450 priests in their vestments ministered at the altars, and Ahab himself attended the worship in state, presenting rich offerings; doubtless amidst all the wild excitement and license which marked the service of Baal. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—AUG. 8.
Inheritance of the Saints.—Continued.
PROMISE CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
1. Why was Saul rejected from being king of Israel? "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 1 Sam. 15 : 23. 2. Who was chosen in his stead? "Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts. I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel." 2 Sam. 7 : 8. 3. By whom was David chosen to be ruler? 5. Repeat the promise which the Lord made to David concerning his house and kingdom. "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever." 2 Sam. 7 : 16. 6. What promise did the Lord make at the same time concerning Israel? "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime." 2 Sam. 7 : 10. 7. What did he say he would appoint for them? Ib. 8. Where should they dwell? Ib. 9. From what should they be free? Ib. 10. From 2 Sam. 7 : 10, quoted above, what conclusion must we draw concerning the promises made to Abraham, and to the Israelites at Sinai? We must conclude that those promises were not fulfilled in the possession of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. If they had been, we would not at this time find the Lord renewing the same promise, when they were already in the land that the Lord had given to them. 11. In what condition was the kingdom of Israel when the Lord made the promise recorded in 2 Sam. 7 : 10? "And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies." 2 Sam. 7 : 1. 12. Then what must we conclude concerning that promise of rest and peace? Since the Israelites were already dwelling in the land that the Lord had given them by Joshua, and were at peace with all around them, it follows that the promise of a land of their own, and of rest and peace, must refer to something in the future, something far greater than anything yet known. This can only be found in that perfect inheritance when the "kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom." Dan. 7 : 27. This will be the perfect rest that remains for the people of God, for when the meek inherit the earth they shall "delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Ps. 37 : 11. 14. What had the Lord said concerning him? "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." 2 Sam. 7 : 12, 13. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
"IN the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years;" the fiftieth year of the divided kingdom, B. C. 925. This date marks the commencement of his possession of the whole kingdom, four years after his first election as king (1 Kings 16:16, 21, 22). Omri was the sixth king of Israel, and the founder of the third dynasty, which lasted for three generations and four kings. His father's name and tribe are unknown. He was the commanding general of the Israelite army. For four years he held a contested reign with Tibni, whom half the people chose for their king. But Omri had possession of the capital and the army, and at length Tibni died and Omri reigned. TIRZAH, or delight. This city was only a few miles distant from Shechem, but its exact site is unknown. Jeroboam at first selected Shechem for his capital; but, after a few years, removed his residence to Tirzah, which from that time until the reign of Omri continued to be the royal city. It probably owed its name to the natural beauties of its situation, as well as to the magnificence of its buildings. When the palace was burned by Zimri, the beauty of the place must have been injured; and, as it was necessary to erect a new palace, the king determined to select a new site, probably from the experienced impossibility of fortifying Tirzah so as to enable it to stand a siege. "AND he bought the hill Samaria." As Constantine's sagacity is fixed by his choice of Constantinople, so is that of Omri by his choice of Samaria. Six miles from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a long, level top. This was the mountain of Samaria, so named after its owner, Shemer, who there lived in state, and who sold it to the king for the great sum of two talents of silver. It combined, in a union not elsewhere found in Palestine, strength, beauty, and fertility. It commanded a full view of the sea and the plain of Sharon on the one hand, and of the vale of Shechem on the other. It stood amidst a circle of hills, commanding a view of its streets and slopes, itself the crown and glory of the whole scene. "OMRI wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord, and did worse than all." Of Omri it is said that in the eyes of the Lord his conduct on the throne was worse than that of all the kings before him. The particulars are not in the history directly stated further than that he carried out with vigor the fatal and ruinous policy of Jeroboam. But if we refer to the prophecy of Micah (6:16), we find this remarkable verse: "For the statutes of Omri are kept." We cannot doubt that these "statutes of Omri" were measures adopted for more completely isolating the people of Israel from the services of the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, and of perpetuating—perhaps of increasing—their idolatrous practices. His encouragement of idolatry is incidentally confirmed by the fact that he brought about a marriage between Ahab, his son and heir, and Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre. The Alliance of Judah and Israel
The thirty and eighth year of Asa, that is, about 918 B. C. The sister of Ahab, Athaliah, daughter of Omri, was married to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. By this alliance the two kingdoms were, for a time, drawn nearer together, and the idolatries of Samaria were introduced into Jerusalem. "And Ahab . . . did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him." The same words are used of his father in verse 25. It is not difficult to see in what way Ahab's rule was worse even than Omri's. The latter had gone beyond his predecessors in the matter of calf-worship. In the long catalogue of royal transgressors, the name of Ahab stands unenviably pre-eminent. "There was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord." Moral weakness was his undoing. AND he took to wife Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal. The weakness and the sin of Ahab is seen in his putting himself deliberately in the strongest temptation to forsake God, by marrying such a heathen as Jezebel. This woman came of a fierce and profligate family, and united in herself stern religious fanaticism with the luxurious dissoluteness of an oriental queen. Her father, Ethbaal, or "with Baal," was a priest of Astarte, who assassinated the reigning king of Sidon, and usurped the throne for fifty-two years. His kingdom embraced Tyre also. These two cities, Tyre and Sidon, were Phoenician cities on the seacoast of Syria, north of Palestine. They were powerful cities, but proverbially wicked (Matt. 11 : 21). Their wickedness seems to have been concentrated in Ethbaal and his family, and especially in Jezebel. Her strong and fierce character soon acquired resistless influence over the weak Ahab, and introduced untold mischief into the kingdom, and even into the kingdom of Judah, through the marriage of Athaliah to Jehoram. The name Jezebel became, and is to this day, the synonym for female wickedness, especially that of a ferocious type. The marriage of Ahab and Jezebel took place before he ascended the throne, and was probably the work of Omri. Rawlinson reminds us that Jezebel was great aunt to Pygmalion and Dido. This statement helps to explain Jezebel's fierce and sanguinary character, and at the same time accounts for her great devotion to the gods of her country, and for her determined efforts to establish their impure rites in her husband's kingdom. In Jezebel we vainly look for one womanly relenting, one gentle weakness, to soften the hard lines of more than masculine firmness. The Worship of Baal and Ashtoreth
- "And went and served Baal and worshiped him." Baal and Ashtoreth, or Astarte,—whence our word star,—were the chief Phœnician deities, male and female respectively. They correspond to the Assyrian Bel and Ishtar. The sun was regarded as the emblem of Baal, and the moon, or the planet Venus, as that of Ashtoreth. Hence the worship was connected with that of heavenly bodies. Ashtoreth was to the Phœnicians what the goddess Venus was to the Greeks. Hence the worship of these imaginary deities was associated with fierce 1 (1 Kings 18 : 28), and at the same time the most licentious and infamous rites. Consequently it was productive of the greatest profligacy and wickedness, and was especially abhorrent to the God of infinite purity and truth.