Images de page
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

elected by the magistrates for the express reason that God had promised him the throne. Saul was not established in his kingdom till after he had delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites; and the rulers tendered the sceptre to David, because he, in the time of Saul, had defeated the enemies of Israel.

worship, (2Chron. 15. 16; 30. 14; 2Kings 23. 4;) and | Saul was designated by the sacred lot, and David was over which Our Lord passed to enter the Garden of Gethsemane, the night before his sufferings and death. Mr. Robinson, when at Jerusalem, remarks, "Going out of the eastern gate, which is that of St. Stephen's, anciently called the Gate of Flocks,' we descended by a rapid and rugged path to the brook Kedron. At this moment (August 22) it is waterless; but in winter, after snows and heavy rains, it would appear from its wide stony bed to be a mischievous torrent. It is crossed by a bridge of one arch, leading to the Garden of Gethsemane, an appellation still given to a small plantation of olive-trees, occupying the flat space which intervenes between the brook and the Mount of Olives, and hedged round with a dry stone fence." See JERUSALEM.


KING,melech. Though Samuel "peaceably and religiously judged Israel," it appears that in his old age the tribes in Southern Palestine and beyond the Jordan, were particularly earnest for a change in the constitution of the land, because they feared that, after the death of Samuel, there would be no supreme magistrate, and thus the nation being again disunited they would be left to their fate. The degeneracy of the sons of Samuel who had been appointed subordinate judges or deputies, increased their apprehensions. They therefore strenuously insisted in their demand: "Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations." (1Sam. 8. 19.) They had reason to hope that a king, who possessed supreme authority, would unite the powers of the whole nation, and protect each tribe with the collected strength of all; that under him the affairs of government would be more properly administered, and necessary aid more readily afforded. They imagined they might be justified in this request, because Moses himself takes it for granted, that the nation would eventually have a king, and the same thing had been promised to their great progenitor Abraham. (Gen. 17. 16; Deut. 28. 36.) Samuel laid their prayer before the Lord, and then, in obedience to the Divine direction, anointed Saul, the son of Kish, as their monarch. (1Sam. 10. 1.)

"By this alteration of the constitution," Professor Jahn observes, "the theocracy was indeed thrown somewhat into the shade, since it could be no longer so clearly manifest that God was the king of the Hebrews. Still, however, as the principles of the theocracy were interwoven with the fundamental and unchangeable law of the state, their influence did not entirely cease, but the elected king was to act as the viceroy and vassal of Jehovah. On this account, Moses had already established the following regulations. (Deut. 17. 14-20.)`

“(1.) That the Hebrews, whenever they adopted the monarchical form of government, should raise those only to the throne who were designated by Jehovah himself. The will of Jehovah was to be made known by a prophet, or by means of the sacred lot, Urim and Thummim; and the viceroy-elect was to prove himself an instrument of God by protecting the commonwealth against its foes. The succession of the royal house depended on the appointment of God, and was indicated by prophets. Saul, David, and Jeroboam, received the promise of the throne from prophets, and by them was announced the succession of the family of David, and of the different families in the kingdom of Israel. These Divine interpositions were well calculated to remind the kings of Him on whom they were dependant, and to whose choice they were indebted for the throne.

"(2.) Moses had likewise ordained that the king should be a native Israelite; thus foreigners were excluded from the throne, even though they should be proposed by false prophets; for, being heathens, they might transgress the fundamental law of the state by the introduction of idolatry. This regulation had reference merely to free elections, and was by no means to be understood as it was explained by Judas Galileus (Acts 5. 37) and the Zealots, during the last war with the Romans, that the Hebrews were not to submit to those foreign powers under whose dominion they were brought by an all-directing Providence. On the contrary, Moses himself had predicted such events, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel earnestly exhorted their countrymen to surrender themselves quietly to the Chaldæans."

With regard to the external qualifications which the Jews appear to have required of their kings, comeliness of person and tallness of stature seem to have been the principal requisites. Thus, although Saul was constituted king of Israel by the special appointment of God,. yet it appears to have been no inconsiderable circumstance in the eyes of the people, that he was a choice young man and goodly, and that there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from the shoulders and upwards he was higher than any of the people. (1Sam. 9. 2.) And therefore Samuel said to the people, when he presented Saul to them: See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen that there is none like him among all the people. (1Sam. 10. 24.) Hence, also, David is said to have been "ruddy withal, of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to." (1Sam. 16. 12.)

As cavalry could be of little use in the mountainous regions of Palestine, and as the king of the Hebrews was never to become a conqueror of foreign lands, or a universal monarch, he was forbidden to maintain large bodies of cavalry, or to attempt the conquest of Egypt in order to obtain horses.

The king was likewise prohibited from multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away from the law and worship of the God of Israel, by his being seduced into idolatry in consequence of foreign alliances. How grossly this law was violated by Solomon and other monarchs, the history of the Jews and Israelites abundantly proves.

In order that he might not be ignorant of true religion, and of the laws of the Israelites, the king was enjoined to write out, for his own use, a correct copy of the Divine Law; which injunction was intended to rivet this law more firmly in his memory, and to keep him in constant subjection to its authority. For the same purpose, he was required to read in this copy "all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law, and these statutes to do them."

Thus the power of the Israelitish kings was circumscribed by a code of fundamental and equal laws, provided by infinite wisdom and rectitude. It appears that the Israelitish kings were by no means possessed of unlimited power, but were restricted by a solemn stipulation; although they on some occasions evinced a disposition towards despotism (1Sam. 11. 5-7; 22. 17,18.) They had, however, the right of making war

and peace, as well as the power of life and death; and could on particular occasions put criminals to death without the formalities of justice, (2Sam. 1. 5-15; 4. 9-12;) but in general they administered justice; sometimes in a summary way by themselves, where the case appeared clear, as David did occasionally, (2Sam. 12. 1-5; 14. 4-11; 1Kings 2. 5-9,) or by judges duly constituted to hear and determine causes in the king's name. (1Chron. 23. 4; 26. 29-32.)

Although the kings enjoyed the privilege of granting pardons to offenders at their pleasure, without consulting any person; and in ecclesiastical affairs exercised great power, sometimes deposing or condemning to death even the high-priest himself, (1Sam. 22. 17,18; 1Kings 2. 26,27,) and at other times, reforming gross abuses in religion, of which we have examples in the zealous conduct of Hezekiah and Josiah; yet this power was enjoyed by them not as absolute sovereigns in their own right; they were merely the viceroys of Jehovah, who was the sole legislator of Israel; and, therefore, as the kings could, on no occasion, either enact a new law, or alter or repeal an old one, the government continued to be a theocracy, as well under their permanent administration as under the occasional administration of the Judges. The only difference that can be discovered between the two species of government, is, that the conduct of the judges was generally directed by Urim, and that of the kings, either by the inspiration of God vouchsafed to themselves, or by prophets raised up from time to time to reclaim them when deviating from their duty, as laid down in the law. The monarch was also charged, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren; in other words, to govern his subjects with mildness and beneficence, not as slaves, but as brothers. So David styled his subjects his brethren. (1Chron. 28. 2.)

The inauguration of the Jewish kings was performed with great pomp and with various ceremonies. The principal of these was anointing with holy oil, (Psalm 89. 20,) which was sometimes privately performed by a prophet, (1Sam. 10. 1; 16. 1-13,) and was a symbolical prediction that the person so anointed would ascend the throne; but after the monarchy was established, this unction was performed by a priest, (1Kings 1. 39;) at first in some public place, (1Kings 1. 32-34,) and afterwards in the Temple, the monarch elect being surrounded by his guards. (2Kings 11. 11,12; 2Chron. 23.) It is probable, also, that he was at the same time girded with a sword. (Psalm 45. 3.) After the king was anointed he was proclaimed by the sound of a trumpet. In this manner was Solomon proclaimed. (1 Kings 1. 34,39.) From this ceremony of anointing, kings are, in the Scriptures, frequently termed the anointed of the Lord, and of the God of Jacob. (1Sam. 24. 6,10; 26. 9,11,16,23; 2Sam. 23. 1.) A diadem or crown was also placed upon the sovereign's head, and a sceptre put into his hand, (2Kings 11. 12; Psalm 45. 6; Ezek. 21. 26;) after which he entered into a solemn covenant with his subjects that he would govern according to its conditions and to the law of Moses. (2Sam. 5. 3; 1Chron. 11. 3.) The nobles in their turn promised obedience, and appear to have confirmed this pledge with a kiss, either of the knees or feet. (Psalm 2. 12.) Loud acclamations accompanied with music then followed, after which the king entered the city. (1 Kings 1. 39,40; 2Kings 11. 12,19.) To this practice there are numerous allusions both in the Old Testament, (Psalm 47. 1-9; 97. 1,) as well as in the New, (Matt. 21. 9,10; Mark 11. 9,10; Luke 19. 35-38;) in which last cited passage, the Jews, by welcoming Our Saviour in the same manner as their kings were formerly inau

[ocr errors]

gurated, manifestly acknowledged Him to be the Messiah whom they expected. After entering the city, the kings seated themselves upon the throne, and received the congratulations of their subjects. (1 Kings 1. 35,47,48; 2Kings 11. 19,20.)

The robe which was worn by kings as suited to their elevated rank, was costly and gorgeous; and the retinue which attended them was both large in point of numbers and splendid in appearance. (1Kings 4. 1-24.) The materials of which the robe was made was fine white linen or cotton, and that the apparel of the Jewish monarchs was different from that of all other persons, is evident from Ahab's changing his apparel before he engaged in battle, and from Jehoshaphat's retaining his. (1 Kings 22. 30.) Among the appropriate ornaments of the king's person, there was none so rich and valuable anciently, and there is none so costly and splendid at the present day in Asia, as the royal diadem; which is irradiated with pearls and gems. They had also a chain for the neck and bracelets for the arms. In Persia, a diadem was worn not only by the king himself, but, with a little variation in its shape, by his relations and others to whom special favours had been conceded. (Esth. 8. 15.) See CROWN.

The throne, ND kesi, was a seat with a back and arms, and of a height to render a footstool necessary. (Gen. 41. 40.) On the monuments of Egypt, this form of throne is frequently represented accompanied by the footstool. The throne of Solomon is particularly described in 1Kings 10. 18-20. This throne was placed on a flooring, elevated six steps, on each of which steps, and on either side, was the figure of a lion, making twelve of them in the whole. Similar to this was the throne on which the sovereign of Persia was seated to receive Sir Gore Ouseley, the English ambassador. It was ascended by steps, on which were painted dragons, (that of Solomon was decorated with carved lions,) and was overlaid with fine gold.

The royal sceptre appears to have varied at different times. That of Saul was a javelin or spear, (1Sam. 18. 10; 22. 6,) but generally the sceptre, a shebet, was a wooden rod or staff, not much shorter in point of length than the ordinary height of the human form, and was surmounted with an ornamental ball on the upper extremity, as may still be seen in the sculptures of Persepolis. This sceptre was either overlaid with gold, or, according to ancient authorities, was ornamented with golden studs and rings. To such sceptres, the prophet Ezekiel seems to allude. (19. 11.) The sceptre in the hands of the kings and gods of Egypt, is generally surmounted by the head of the hoopoe, and in some cases the lotus flower. If we endeavour to seek for the origin of this ensign of royal authority, we shall find the first suggestion of it, either in the pastoral staff that was borne by shepherds, or in those staves which at the earliest period were carried by persons of high rank, merely for show and ornament. (Gen. 38. 18; Numb. 17. 7; Psalm 23. 4.)

The table of the Hebrew kings and everything connected with it exhibited the same luxurious profusion as characterizes modern Oriental sovereigns, and numbers were fed from the royal kitchen. This fact may serve to account for the apparently immense quantity of provisions, stated in 1Kings 4. 22,23,28, to have been consumed by the household of Solomon, whose vessels were for the most part of massive gold. (1 Kings 10. 21.) The provisions were supplied throughout the year from the twelve provinces into which he divided his dominions, as is the custom, according to Mr. Morier, in Persia to this day.

A numerous household is to the present day an indis


pensable piece of regal state in the East. Thus, not less than two thousand persons are said by Mr. Jowett to be employed about the palace of the emir of the Druses. "We saw many professions and trades going on in it; soldiers, horse-breakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, scribes, cooks, tobacconists, &c. There was in the air of this mingled assemblage, something which forcibly brought to my recollection the description of an Eastern royal household, as given by Samuel. (1Sam. 8. 11-17.)"

There are frequent allusions in the Sacred Writings to the courts of princes, and to the regal state which they anciently enjoyed. See COURTS.

The mode of doing reverence to the sovereign among the ancient Persians, was little short of absolute idolatry; and similar prostrations are made by their descendants in the present day. On these occasions, it was usual to address them with some compliment, or with wishes for their long life, and such was the case among the Jews. Thus the widow of Tekoah, after prostating herself before David addressed him with, "My lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God," (2Sam. 14. 20;) and the Chaldæan magi accosted Nebuchadnezzar with, "O king, live for ever." (Dan. 2. 4.) A similar salutation, according to Roberts, is given at this day in India. When a poor man goes into the presence of a king to solicit a favour, he says, “O father, thou art the support of the destitute. Mayest thou live to old age!"

The homage rendered to these monarchs was equally exacted by their chief courtiers and favourites of all who approached them; thus Mordecai's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman, (Esth. 3. 2,) would have proved fatal not only to himself but also to the Jewish nation, had not the malignant design of this wicked man been providentially frustrated. (Esth. 3. 3-6; 5. 13.)


When Oriental monarchs perform long journeys, they are surrounded with a great and splendid retinue, and formerly sent harbingers before them to prepare all things for their passage, and pioneers to open the passes, level the ways, and remove all impediments. ancient sovereigns of Hindostan used to send persons to precede them on their journeys, and command the inhabitants to clear the roads: a very necessary step in a country where there are scarcely any public roads; and when a modern Hindoo of rank has to pass through a town or village, a messenger is despatched to tell the people to prepare the way, and to await his orders. To this practice the prophet Isaiah manifestly alludes. (ch. 40. 3, compared with Malachi 3. 1; Matt. 3. 3, and Mark 1. 3.)

The Hebrew kings when they travelled either rode on asses and mules, (2Sam. 13. 29; 17. 23,) or rode in chariots, being preceded by soldiers, who formed their body guard. (1 Kings 1. 5.) See GUARD.

The sources of revenue to the Hebrew kings were, no doubt, nearly the same with those in other Oriental countries; from what can be gathered from the Sacred Writings, it appears that they were derived from the following sources:

(1.) Presents which were given voluntarily. (1Sam. 10. 27; 16. 20.) Michaëlis, however, is of opinion that they were confined to Saul only, as no trace of them is to be found after his time.


arable lands, vineyards, olive and sycamore grounds, which had originally been uninclosed and uncultivated, or were the property of state criminals: these demesnes were cultivated by bondsmen, and, perhaps, also by the people of conquered countries; and it appears from 1Samuel 8. 14; 22. 7, and Ezekiel 46. 17, that the kings assigned part of their domains to their servants in lieu of salary.

(4.) The tenth part of all the produce of the fields and vineyards, the collection and management of which seem to have been confided to the officers mentioned in 1Kings 4. 7, and 1Chronicles 27. 25. It is probable, from 1Kings 10. 14, that the Israelites likewise paid a tax in money. These imposts Solomon appears to have increased; and Rehoboam's refusal to lessen them is stated by the sacred historian as the cause of the rebellion of the ten tribes against him. (1Kings 12. 14,18.) (5.) Another source of revenue was the spoils of conquered nations, the most valuable portion of which became the king's. It was in this way, that David collected the most of his treasures. The nations that were subdued in war likewise paid tribute, which was given partly in money, and partly in agricultural produce. (1Kings 4. 21; Psalm 72. 10.)

(6.) The tribute imposed upon merchants who passed through the Hebrew territories, and who in the time of Solomon carried on a very extensive and lucrative trade, (1 Kings 10. 22,) particularly in Egyptian horses, and the fine linen of Egypt.

Those who sustained the station of servants and officers to the king, were entirely dependent on his will, and, on the other hand, for example, as governors of provinces, they exercised a similar arbitrary power over those who were immediately subject to themselves. Hence it is, that the prophets frequently complain of their oppressions and violence.

The royal officers of every grade were denominated the servants of the king, and, like the Orientals of the present day, they took a pride in being thus denominated.


"Those who had the management of the collection of the revenues," says Professor Jahn, or were entrusted indeed in any way, were not customarily called to an account. In case they were called upon to render an account of their proceedings, they showed themselves prompt at the arts of deception; but the consequence of an attempt at misrepresenting, or defrauding, was almost certain ruin. (Luke 16. 2.)"

King, in symbolical language, signifies the possessor of supreme power, whether lodged in one or more persons. (Prov. 8. 15,16.) The term is applied especially to God, as sovereign over all. (Psalm 10. 16; 29. 10.) It is also applied to the Messiah, (Psalm 2. 6;) and in Job 18. 14 it is applied to Death, who is there called the "king of terrors." In Job 41. 34, leviathan, or the crocodile, is thus designated: "he is a king over all the children of pride." In Revelations 15. 3, God is called the "king of saints;" and, (ch. 1. 6,) “king" is applied to all true Christians who are consecrated to God as kings and priests.

Roberts observes, in illustration of the passage in the prophet Isaiah, "Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their face towards the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet," (ch. 49. 23,) "Thus were those who had been enemies to Jehovah to bow down and acknowledge his majesty. They were to lick up the dust,' which is a figurative expression to denote submission and adoration. Boasting vain fellow! the king your friend! he your companion. You will not have (3.) The produce of the royal demesnes, consisting of even the dust of his feet given you for food.'

(2.) The produce of the royal flocks, (1Sam. 21. 7; 25am. 13. 23; 2Chron. 32. 28,29;) and as both king and subjects had a common right of pasture in the Arabian deserts, Michaëlis is of opinion that David kept numerous herds there, (1Chron. 27. 29-31,) which were partly under the care of Arabian herdsmen.



minister give you that office! he will not give you the
dust of his feet.' 'Alas! alas! for me; I expected his
favour; I depended on his word; but I have not gained
the dust of his feet.' 'I will not remain longer in this
country; I will leave you, and go to reside with the
king. With the king! Why, the dust of his feet will
not be given you for a reward.' 'Could I but see that |
holy man!
I would eat the dust of his feet.' So great,
then, is to be the humility and veneration of kings and
queens, in reference to the Most High, that they will
bow down before Him, and lick up the dust of his feet."

is used to signify the reign of Jesus Christ on earth and in heaven. (Matt. 4. 17; 5. 3; 7. 21.) See preceding Article.

KINGS, BOOKS OF. The Jews entitle these books from the initial words, 7 Vihammelech David; and in the early editions of the Hebrew Bible, the two books constitute but one, with sometimes a short space or break between them. The more modern copies of the Hebrew Bible have the same division with our authorized version; though in the time of the Masorites they certainly formed only one book, as both (like the of sections, versions, &c., in the Masora. They have Books of Samuel) are included under one enumeration evidently been divided, at some period now unknown, into two parts, for the convenience of reading. The First Book of Kings commences with an account of the death of David, and contains a period of a hundred and twentysix years, to the death of Jehoshaphat; and the Second Book of Kings continues the history of the kings of Israel and Judah through a period of three hundred years, to Nebuchadnezzar. They were most probably compiled the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by by Ezra from the records which were regularly kept, both in Jerusalem and Samaria, of all public transactions. These records appear to have been made by the contem

KINGDOM OF GOD. This is a term of frequent occurrence in Scripture, and variously applied to the providential, moral, and evangelical government of Jehovah. Thus we read of the kingdom of God, (Psalm 103. 19; Dan. 4. 3,) in reference to his universal empire and dominion over all creatures. We frequently read, in the Evangelists, of the kingdom of heaven; "A phrase," says Dr. Campbell, "in which there is a manifest allusion to the predictions relating to the dispensation of the Messiah, as revealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly by Daniel, who mentions it as a kingdom which the God of heaven would set up, and which should never be destroyed. (Dan. 2. 14.) The same prophet speaks of it as a kingdom to be given with glory and dominion over all people, nations, and lan-porary prophets, and frequently derived their names from guages, to one like unto the Son of Man. (Dan. 7. 13,14; tioned in many parts of Scripture; thus in 1Kings 11. the kings whose history they contained. They are menMicah 4. 6,7.) The Jews, accustomed to this way of 41, we read of the Book of the Acts of Solomon, which is speaking, expected the kingdom of the Messiah to supposed to have been written by Nathan, Ahijah, and resemble that of a temporal king, exercising power over his enemies, restoring the Hebrew monarchy, and the maiah the prophet, and Iddo the seer, wrote the acts of Iddo. (2Chron. 9. 29.) We elsewhere read that Shethrone of David, to all its splendour; subduing the Rehoboam, (2Chron. 12. 15;) that Jehu wrote the acts nations, and rewarding his friends and faithful servants in proportion to their fidelity and services. Hence the Uzziah and Hezekiah. (2Chron. 26. 22; 32. 32.) We of Jehoshaphat, (2Chron. 20. 34;) and Isaiah those of early contests among the Apostles about precedency in his kingdom; and hence the sons of Zebedee desired the and other authentic documents, were composed the two may therefore conclude, that from these public records, two chief places in it. the opinion of their being put into their present shape Books of Kings; and the uniformity of their style favour by the same person.

[ocr errors]

According to the prophecy of Daniel, this kingdom was to take place during the existence of the Roman empire, the last of the four great monarchies that had succeeded each other, (Dan. 2. 44;) and in the New Testament it is termed the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven.' It was typified by the Jewish theocracy, and declared to be at hand by John the theocracy, and declared to be at hand by John the Baptist, and by Christ and his Apostles also in the days of his flesh; but it did not come with power till Jesus rose from the dead and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Acts 2. 32-37.) Then was He most solemnly inaugurated and proclaimed King of the Universe, and especially of the New Testament church, amidst myriads of attendant angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect. Then were fulfilled the words of Jehovah by David, I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.' (Psalm 2. 6.)"

This is that spiritual and eternal empire to which Our Lord himself referred when interrogated by Pontius Pilate, and in reference to which He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18. 36,37.) His empire, indeed, extends to every creature; for "all authority is committed into his hands, both in heaven and on earth,” and He is head over all things to the Church; but his kingdom primarily imports the Gospel church, which is the subject of his laws, the seat of his government, and the object of his care; and being surrounded with powerful opposers, He is represented as ruling in the

midst of his enemies.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. This is an expression which frequently occurs in the New Testament, and

There is every reason to believe that the writer was a priest or a prophet. He studies less to describe acts of heroism, successful battles, conquests, &c., than what regards the Temple, religious ceremonies, festivals, the worship of God, the piety of princes, the fidelity of the prophets, the punishment of crimes, the manifestation of God's anger against the wicked, and his regard for the righteous. He everywhere appears greatly attached to only incidentally; his principal object being the kingdom the house of David, and mentions the kings of Israel of Judah and its particular affairs.

predictions they contain; they are cited as authentic and
The Divine authority of these books is attested by the
canonical by Our Lord, (Luke 4. 25-27,) and by his
Apostles, (Acts 7. 47; Rom. 11. 2-4; James 5. 17,18;)
the Jewish and Christian churches in every age.
and they have held a place in the sacred canon both of
truth and authenticity also derive additional confirmation
from the corresponding testimonies of ancient profane


[blocks in formation]


the dominion of the Assyrians, (Isai. 22. 6,) where the conquered Syrians were carried captive, (2Kings 16. 9; Amos 1. 5,) and whence the Aramæans had emigrated. (Amos 9. 7.) Part of the inhabitants of Kir served in the army of Sennacherib. It is thought to be a country through which flows the river Kur as it is called by the Russians, or Kier as it is termed by the Persians; the Kuros (Cyrus) of the Greeks. This river unites its waters to the Aras, or Araxes, and empties itself into the Caspian Sea under the 39th degree of north latitude. Professor Jahn thinks that the Usbecks, who dwell here to this time, may be the descendants of the Syrian captives.

[blocks in formation]

(2.) Kirjath-Arba, (Gen. 23. 2,) an ancient name of Hebron. The antiquity of this city is emphatically asserted in Numbers 13. 22, where it is said, "Hebron was built seven years before Zoan, in Egypt." It was celebrated not only as the place of the sojourning of Abraham, and as containing in its vicinity the family cemetery of the patriarchs, but also for its being the residence of the court of David until he obtained the entire dominion over Israel. See HEBRON.

(3.) Kirjath-Huzoth, or the city of streets, a royal city of Balak, king of Moab. (Numb. 22. 39.)


(4.) Kirjath-Jearim, or the city of forests, called also Baalah, (Josh. 15. 9,) likewise Kirjath-Baal, (15. 60,) was a town situated on the confines of the allotments to the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. Hence it is reckoned among the cities of both tribes, (Josh. 15. 60; 18. 28;) but in Judges 18. 12 it is called Kirjath-Jearim in Judah. Here the ark of the covenant remained twenty years after its removal from Beth-Shemesh, until David, having obtained possession of Jerusalem, fixed the sanctuary in that city. (1 Sam. 6. 21; 1Chron. 13. 6.)

(5.) Kirjath-Sannah, or the city of the Law, was a city in the tribe of Judah. (Josh. 15. 49.)

(6.) Kirjath-Sepher, or the city of writing, otherwise called Debir, a city in the tribe of Judah, which was captured from the Canaanites by Othniel. (Josh. 15. 15,16; Judges 1. 11.) Concerning the import of its name, there is a difference of opinion; some consider it to have been a seat of learning, while others, from Debir, signifying an oracle, imagine that it was a seminary for the education of priests. In either view the circumstance is remarkable, because it occurs as early as the days of Joshua, and it was evidently an establishment by the Canaanites previous to the Hebrew invasion.

KISH, the son of Abdiel, also called Ner, was the father of Saul, of a humble family in the tribe of Benjamin. He was both a shepherd and a warrior, conformably to the custom of the times, and his valour is eulogized in the Scriptures. (1Sam. 14. 51; 1Chron. 8. 30; 9. 39.)

[graphic][subsumed][merged small]

season when, replenished by its numerous tributary streams, the Kishon becomes a deep and impetuous torrent, that the bands of Sisera perished in its waters. Like several other streams in Palestine, the Kishon does not run with a full current into the sea, except in the time of the rains, but percolates through the sands which interpose between it and the sea.

KISHON. "That ancient river, the river Kishon," | swollen in the rainy season. It was probably at this (Judges 5. 21,) now called the Makattam, falls into the bay of Acre, and has its source in the hills to the east of the plain of Esdraëlon, which it intersects. At the foot of Mount Carmel it forms two streams, one of which flows eastward into the sea of Galilee, and the other taking a westerly direction, through the plain of Esdraelon, empties itself into the Mediterranean. Except when swollen by the rain or melting snows, it is but a small stream. When Maundrell crossed it, in his way to Jerusalem, its waters were low and inconsiderable; but in passing along the side of the plain, he observed the tracts of many tributary rivulets flowing down into it from the mountains, by which it must be greatly

This river is celebrated for the slaughter on its banks of the prophets of Baal, by the prophet Elijah, (1Kings 18. 4;) but it is immortalized by the song of Deborah and Barak: "The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo; they took no gain of money. They fought

« PrécédentContinuer »