Jerusalem towered so high above the few other towns in the kingdom that they stood toward her only in a relation of dependence. In this respect Judah resembled states like Damascus, Babylon, and Rome. Furthermore, the Temple, with its splendid equipment, commanded the reverence and homage of all the people, and was, therefore, a potent uniting force. These elements of strength and union were lacking in Israel. Ephraim, the leading tribe, shared its influence with others. Rival sectional interests were an even greater source of weakness. The tribes in the extreme north and across the Jordan never participated actively in the common national life of Israel. Natural divisions, like the plain of Esdraelon and the deep valley of the Jordan, kept the different sections of the Northern Kingdom from coming into close touch with each other. An inevitable result of the wide variations in physical contour was that its inhabitants were found engaged in a great variety of occupations. In the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, for example, agricultural and pastoral pursuits flourished side by side; on the rich plain of Esdraelon the life was wholly agricultural; in the north, fishing as well as the culture of the soil occupied the people; while across the Jordan the majority of the inhabitants were shepherds. Consequently, while Judah was a perfect social unit, bound together by the closest natural bonds, Israel was made up of a loose aggregation of such units. In the north also there was no capital city like Jerusalem, nor sanctuary like that reared by Solomon, dominating and binding together all these different elements, which from geographical, racial, and political causes were so heterogeneous.”—Kent.

VI. Differences in Government. "Furthermore, in Israel, where a strong central government was most needed,

it was most conspicuously lacking. In Judah the kingship was hereditary, and was retained in the same family throughout its history, so that its rulers enjoyed the prestige of the name of David, and all the cumulative power which comes from an uninterrupted succession. The priesthood, which exercised great influence, used this to maintain the authority of the throne, by which it was in turn supported. The prophets also coöperated with the civil rulers to further the political interests of the nation. Throughout Judean history the relations of court and people were most cordial. Therefore the authority of the king was practically absolute without being tyrannical. In Israel these conditions were in many respects reversed. Jeroboam I. was raised to the throne from the ranks of the people. His authority, therefore, was delegated, and he enjoyed none of the prestige of a long established royal line. His influence, like that of the judges of earlier days. and the kings who succeeded him, depended chiefly upon his own personal ability. When an Israelitish king was weak or incapable, his authority was little more than that of his most powerful nobles. This fact explains why so often in the Northern Kingdom an aspiring subject was able to mount the throne by the assassination of his sovereign. These frequent revolutions tended still further to weaken the authority of the central government. Consequently, the strength of Israel was constantly being sapped, not only by foes from without, but by inefficient rule and anarchy within."-KENT.

VII. Jeroboam felt obliged to do something to offset the prestige and attraction of Jerusalem as the great national shrine. He did not attempt to set up new centers of worship, but made use of those at Dan and Bethel, which

had been sacred for centuries. The one at Dan was presided over by the family of a Levite of Bethlehem, who traced descent from Moses. According to Judges 18:30, 31, the same priestly family continued in charge of the sanctuary of Dan from the days of the Judges to the captivity.

"If it was necessary for Jeroboam to appoint new priests to meet the additional requirements of the services at the sanctuary in Bethel, which seems to have enjoyed in a greater measure the royal patronage, he could refer, as a precedent, to a similar appointment by David. The ritual at these shrines probably did not differ materially from the one at Jerusalem during the same period. The author of Kings recalls the fact that the great annual feast in Israel was held in the eighth month instead of the seventh, as was the custom in Judah in his time. It may also be inferred that on this occasion the king, like Solomon before him, publicly sacrificed at the great altar in Bethel. prophet Amos, a few generations later, refers to the custom of going up to Bethel and bringing sacrifice every morning, and tithes every three days, and of offering sacrifices of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and of proclaiming free-will offerings."-KENT.

The

VIII. Influence of this Policy of Jeroboam. "Although his contemporaries did not recognize it, the policy which Jeroboam adopted in regard to the national religion was a hindrance to the development of the purer worship of Jehovah. About the sanctuaries which he thus exalted clung all the debasing traditions and customs of a less enlightened past. The golden bulls also belonged to the degrading symbolism of the preceding age. His act, therefore, represented a step backward rather than forward.

Later prophets, who recognized the evils which followed in its train, were right in branding it as a fatal mistake. Keeping alive dead traditions and forms, because they had served the past well enough, instead of adopting a higher expression of truth, was the sin 'wherewith Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, made Israel to sin.' In this respect the newly established temple at Jerusalem, untrammelled by few inherited traditions, enjoyed advantages which were destined ultimately to make it a centre of commanding influence."KENT.

A Religious Crisis

Lesson Passage: I Kings 18: 1-46.

Note these points of importance in the chapter.
The connecting links in the history.

Causes which led to religious and social corruption.
Compare Jeroboam's and Ahab's religious policies.
The underlying errors of Baal worship.

The Influence of Jezebel.

The Character of Ahab.

Elijah as Prophet. Compare Nathan.
The ultimate effect of Elijah's ministry.

I. Jeroboam's Failure. Jeroboam failed to establish his dynasty on the throne of Israel. His reputation as the man who had caused Israel to sin was a fair estimate. He had set up at Bethel and Dan the "Golden Bulls," and these were merely outward and impressive symbols of an inner falseness. False ideas of God bring out falseness in worship and character. The effect of these two to "break down," as Dean Stanley says, "the sacred awe which had hitherto marked the Divine Presence, and accustomed the minds of the Israelites to the very sin against which the new form was intended to be a safeguard. From worshipping God under a false and unauthorized form, they gradually learnt to worship other gods altogether, and the venerable sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel prepared the way for the temples of Ashtroth and Baal at Samaria and Jezreel: and the religion of the Kingdom of Israel sank lower even than that of the Kingdom of Judah, against which it had