EXPOSITION
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, AND THE SCHISM IN THE CHURCH.—The historian, after describing the great rebellion of the Jewish people, proceeds, in the rest of this chapter, to relate the measures which the new king took to secure his position. These were both external and internal. The external means were the erection of fortresses; the internal, the provision of new sanctuaries, priests, and ordinances.
Then Jeroboam built [i.e; rebuilt or fortified, בָּנָה naturally has both meanings] Shechem [see on 1 Kings 12:1 and on 1 Kings 14:1] in Mount Ephraim [The Har-Ephraim, or mountain district of Ephraim (in Joshua 11:16 called the "Mountain of Israel;" cf. Joshua 17:15-6; Judges 4:5; Judges 10:1; 1 Samuel 1:1), is "the central mass of the hills of Palestine, nearly equidistant from the northern and southern boundary of the whole country", and the richest and most beautiful part of the land. "The tower of Sichem had been burnt down by Abimelech and the tower of Penuel had been destroyed by Gideon, Judges 8:17" (Keil). The city of Shechem had been destroyed at the same time as the tower, but had no doubt been rebuilt, at least in part, otherwise it could hardly have been selected for Rehoboam's coronation. It was naturally Jeroboam's first care to strengthen his position by fortitying his capital, and the more so as this city would be particularly obnoxious to Rehoboam as the scene of the revolution; but why he should at the same time have rebuilt Penuel—Ewald thinks the seat of government was placed here—is not at first eight so obvious, as it lay beyond the Jordan (Genesis 32:22, Genesis 32:30; Genesis 33:17) and was therefore presumably outside the circle of hostilities, should such arise. Probably it was because this was the gate to his Trans-Jordanic territory. A tower commanding the fords of the Jordan would secure Reuben, Gad, etc; against invasion from Judah. It is also not unlikely that Jeroboam. who was the great castle builder of that age, had some fears of "hostile attacks from the north and northeast" (Keil), or thought of "the caravan road which led over Gilead to Damascus" (Wordsworth), and of which he would wish, for the sake of his revenue, to retain the control], and dwelt therein [He made it his first residence and capital]; and went out from thence [i.e; when he had secured one fortified city. He could hardly be certain as yet which side some of the tribes would take. It is also possible that some of the workmen who had built Shechem were afterwards employed on the fortification of Penuel], and built Penuel. [Bähr says, "There is no doubt that he built these fortifications by tribute labour, like Solomon." But is this quite so certain? The people after the revolt would naturally conclude that Rehoboam, of whose proud temper they had had such proof, would want to wreak his vengeance on the city which had rejected him, and the instinct of self-defence would lead them at once to rebuild their walls. And the newborn kingdom would also earnestly desire to possess a suitable capital. Thus their self-interest and enthusiasm alike would obviate the necessity for a conscription.]
And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David [It needed much less prescience than Jeroboam seems to have possessed to perceive that fortresses and armies would be of no avail for the defence of his realm, so long as Jerusalem remained the one sanctuary of the land. He clearly foresaw that if the people went up thither, as in time past, three times a year, to keep the feasts, the religious sentiment would in time reassert itself and sweep him and his new dynasty away. With one religion, one sanctuary, one priesthood, there could not long be two kingdoms. People who had so much in common would, sooner or later, complete the unity of their national life under a common sovereign. And we find, indeed, that so powerful were the attractions of the temple, and the religious system of which it was the centre, that "the priests and Levites that were in all Israel," together with the more devout laity, fell away to Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:13, 2 Chronicles 11:16), while the speech of Abijah on Mount Zemaraim (2 Chronicles 13:11), proves that others as well as Jeroboam were well aware that the old religion and the new kingdom could hardly coexist.]
If this people go up to do sacrifice [Heb. sacrifices] in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem [as the law of Moses ordained (Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 16:6, Deuteronomy 16:11)], then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord [The Syriac omits this word. The LXX. has πρὸς Κύριον κὰι κύριον αὐτῶν], even unto Rehoboam king of Judah [When Wordsworth remarks that Jeroboam "here acknowledges Rehoboam as the 'lord' of the people," he surely forgets that these are not the actual words of Jeroboam, but the thoughts which the historian supposes him to have had (verse 26) ], and they shall kill me [as they would do, if they wished to return to Rehoboam's rule. Their first offering would be the head of the usurper, 2 Samuel 20:20, 2 Samuel 20:21; cf. 2 Samuel 4:7], and go again [lit; turn again, same word as above] to Rehoboam king of Judah.
Whereupon the king took counsel ["With his counsellors, or the heads of the nation who had helped him to the throne" (Keil). Bähr understands, "he reflected about it alone" (et excogitato consilio, Vulgate), alleging that so important a circumstance as the concurrence of the heads of the people in changing the system of worship would not have been passed over in silence. But while the text does not perhaps imply any formal deliberation with the elders, it is reasonable to suppose that Jeroboam, who owed his position to popular election, and who was far too sagacious not to follow the example of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:6, 1 Kings 12:9), would summon others to advise him as to this critical and momentous step. Wordsworth refers to Isaiah 30:1, and says that "Jeroboam is the image and pattern of Machiavellian politicians." "Next to Ahithophel, I do not find that Israel yielded a craftier head than Jeroboam's" (Hall)], and made two calves [It is generally held that these were in imitation of, or were suggested by, the "golden calf" of Aaron (Exodus 32:2), and the close resemblance of Jeroboam's words (below), in inaugurating this new cultus, to Aaron's have been thought to prove it. But surely it has been overlooked that Jeroboam could hardly be so shortsighted and unwise as deliberately to reintroduce a worship which had provoked the "fierce wrath" (Isaiah 30:12) of God, and had nearly resulted in the extermination of the Jewish race. For of course neither Jeroboam nor his people could have forgotten the stern condemnation which Aaron's calf worship had received. The molten image ground to powder, the ashes mixed in the drink of the people, the slaughter of three thousand worshippers, etc; would assuredly have lived in the memories of the nation. A more impolitic step, consequently—one more certain to precipitate his ruin, by driving the whole nation into the arms of Judah—Jeroboam could not have taken, than to attempt any revival or imitation of the forbidden cultus of the desert. And it is as little likely that the worship of the calves was derived from the worship of Apis, as practised at Memphis, or of "Mnevis, the sacred calf of Heliopolis" (Stanley), though with both of these Jeroboam had recently been in contact. It would have been but a sorry recommendation in the eyes of Israel that the first act of the new king should be to introduce the hateful idolatry of Egypt into the land; and every consideration tends to show that the calf worship was not, and was not intended to be, idolatry, such as the worship of Egypt undoubtedly was. It is always carefully distinguished from idol worship by the historians and prophets. And the idea which Jeroboam wished to give his subjects was clearly this that, so far from introducing new gods or new sanctuaries, he was merely accommodating the old worship to the new state of things. He evidently felt that what he and his house had most to fear was, not the armies of Rehoboam but the ritual and religious associations of Jerusalem. His object, if he were wise, must therefore be to provide a substitute, a counterfeit worship. "I will give you," he virtually says, "at Bethel and Dan, old sanctuaries of our race long before Jerusalem usurped their place, those visible emblems of the heavenly powers such as are now found only in the temple. You too shall possess those mysterious forms which symbolize the Invisible, but you shall have them nearer home and easier of access." There can be little doubt, consequently, that the "calves" were imitations of the colossal cherubim of Solomon's temple, in which the ox or calf was probably the forma praecipua (1 Kings 6:23).] of gold [Hardly of solid gold. Possibly of. wood covered with gold plates, i.e; similar to the cherubim (1 Kings 6:23-11); probably of molten brass (see 1 Kings 14:9, and cf. Psalms 106:19), overlaid with gold; such images, in fact, as are described in Isaiah 40:19], and said unto them, It is too much for you [This translation, pace Keil, cannot be maintained. Nor can it be said that "the exact meaning of the original is doubtful" (Rawlinson), for a study of the passages where this phrase, רַב־לָכֶם occurs (see, e.g; Deuteronomy 1:6; Deuteronomy 2:8; Deuteronomy 3:26; and cf. Genesis 45:28; Exodus 9:28; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Kings 19:4) will convince the reader that it must be rendered here, "It is enough"—i.e; "you have gone long enough to a city which only owes its present position to the ambition of the tribe of Judah, and which is a standing testimony to your own inferiority; henceforth, desist." We have an exact parallel in Ezekiel 44:6; where the Authorized Version renders, "Let it suffice you." The LXX. supports this view by rendering ἱκανόυσθω ὑμῖν throughout. Vulgate, nolite ultra ascendere, etc.] to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods [rather "god," for Jeroboam had no idea of introducing polytheism. It is true he made two calves because of his two sanctuaries, but each was designed to represent the same object—the one God of Israel. The word is translated, gods" in Exodus 32:1, Exodus 32:4, Exodus 32:8, Exodus 32:23, Exodus 32:31; but as the reference is in every case to the one calf, it should be translated "god" there also. In Nehemiah's citation of the words (Nehemiah 9:18), the word is unmistakably singular. "This is thy god," etc. The words are not "exactly the same as the people used when setting up the golden calf" (Bähr). Jeroboam says, "Behold," etc.], O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. [It is at first sight somewhat difficult to resist the view, which is generally entertained, that Jeroboam, of set purpose, cited the ipsissima verba of the Israelites in the desert (Exodus 32:4). But a little reflection will show that it is much more difficult to believe that a monarch, circumstanced as Jeroboam was, could at the very outset of his career have acted in the teeth of history, and have committed the gross blunder, not to say wanton outrage, of deliberately connecting his new cult with the calf worship of the desert. He can hardly have dared, that is, to say, "This is no new religion, for this very form of worship our fathers used formerly in the desert, under the guidance of Aaron himself" (Seb. Schmidt, followed by Keil, al.) unless both he and his people alike—which is inconceivable—were ignorant of their nation's history recorded in Exodus 32:19-2. It has been argued by some that this action of Jeroboam and the ready compliance of the ten tribes, prove that the Pentateuch cannot then have been written. But, as Hengstenberg (cited by Wordsworth) rejoins, the same argument would lead to the conclusion that the Bible could not have been written in the dark ages, or, we might add, even at the present day. He can hardly have claimed, that is to say, to be reintroducing the calf worship, which God had so emphatically reprobated, unless he designed an open defiance of the Most High, and wished to shock all the religious instincts and convictions of his people. It is much more natural, consequently, to suppose, considering the very frequent recurrence, though sometimes in slightly different shapes, of the formula "the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 20:2; Exodus 29:45, Exodus 29:46; Leviticus 19:36; Leviticus 23:43; Exodus 25:38; Exodus 26:13, 45; Numbers 15:41; Numbers 16:13; Numbers 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:6, Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 6:12; Deuteronomy 8:14; Deuteronomy 9:26; Joshua 24:6, Joshua 24:17; Judges 6:8; 1Sa 8:8; 1 Samuel 10:18; 1 Kings 8:21, etc.) that the correspondence is accidental, the more so as Jeroboam does not quote the exact words, and that he has used a phrase which was constantly in their ears, insisting thereby that his calves were emblems of the God of their race, the God whose great glory it was that He had taken their nation out of the midst of another nation, etc. (Deuteronomy 4:34), and delivered them from a thraldom with which, perhaps, the tyranny of Rehoboam is indirectly compared. Or it there was any reference to the golden calf, it must have been depreciatory, as if to say," That was rank idolatry, and as such it was punished. That calf was an image of Apis. My calves are cherubic symbols, symbols such as He has Himself appointed, of the Great Deliverer of our race. Behold thy God, which really brought thee up," etc.]
And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Daniel [Two considerations seem to have influenced Jeroboam in his choice of these sites. First, both these places were in some sort sanctuaries already. Bethel was already a makom, or holy place, in the days of Abraham; was consecrated by the visions and altar of Jacob (Genesis 28:11-1; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:1, Genesis 35:7, Genesis 35:15), and by the ark having been there (Judges 20:26-7, Hebrews; cf. Jos; Ant; 5.2. 10). And though Dan (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29; Judges 20:1) can hardly have had as sacred a character as the "house of God and the gate of heaven" (Genesis 28:17) had, still it had its shrine and its schismatic priesthood. A grandson of Moses (Judges 18:13, true reading) had ministered there, and his sons were the priests of Dan still. Secondly, these localities would suit the convenience of his subjects, being respectively at the southern and northern extremities of the kingdom. And this, no doubt, was one reason why Dan was chosen in preference to other places, such as Shiloh, which, though more sacred, were less conveniently situated. A sanctuary at Dan would save the northern tribes many tedious journeys. It should be remarked that Bethel properly belonged to Benjamin (Joshua 18:13, Joshua 18:22), though it was also on the border of Ephraim; and it has been suggested that it was Jeroboam's selection of this place as a seat of the calf worship decided the tribe of Benjamin to follow the lead of Judah. But the narrative seems to imply that their choice had been made at an earlier period (verse 21), and the city would seem to have been long in the possession of the house of Joseph (Judges 1:22). It is now known as Beitin, and is one of the most naked and dreary spots in Palestine. "The place seems, as it were, turned to stone; and we can well imagine that the patriarch found nothing softer than a stone for his pillow." Conder, p. 252, who suggests that from the time of Abraham Bethel was a מָקוֹם, a sacred place merely (Genesis 28:11), and distinct from the adjoining city of Luz (verse 19).]
And this thing became a sin [It was in itself sinful, for it both set at nought the express prohibition of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:4), and also disregarded the one sanctuary of God's choice (Deuteronomy 12:5). And it led to other sins, e.g; the intrusion of a schismatic and irregular priesthood, and the performance of unauthorized rites, and to "an ever-deepening corruption of the national faith" (Ewald). Cf. Hosea 8:5; Hosea 13:2. But the meaning is, it became an occasion of sin to the people ("Quod fuit postea causa gravissimi peccati"—Vatab.) Jeroboam "made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:16; 1 Kings 15:26, etc.) It is difficult to conceive, in the face of these and similar words, how any one can seriously maintain that "the church of Israel was the national church" (Stanley, 2:264) ]: for the people went to worship before the one even unto Dan. [The people frequented both sanctuaries; why, then, is that at Dan especially mentioned? Some (Rawlinson, e.g.) have suggested that the text is here corrupt, and that we should read, "before the one to Bethel, and before the other to Dan." According to others, "the one" (הָאֶחַד) refers to the double הָאֶחַד ("the one," "the other"); cf. verse 29. They would interpret, that is, "the people went to both, even to the distant Dan" (Bähr, Thenius). Keil would force the text and understand, "the people, even unto Dan," i.e; the people throughout the whole kingdom. Similarly, Wordsworth. Ewald understands "before the one" to mean כְזֶחַד i.e; "as one," sc. man. On the whole it is better to take the words as they stand, literally. It is quite conceivable that, at first, the people resorted almost exclusively to the Danite sanctuary. Having been for long years a seat of worship, and having probably its "house of high places," or temple (see below), already built, it would naturally be in a position to receive worshippers some time before Bethel was prepared for that purpose. Jeroboam's offering in person at Bethel (verse 32) which marks the inauguration of his new ritual there, may have been partly designed to attract worshippers to a shrine, which, as being nearer Jerusalem, or for some other reason, was neglected. But the verse is patient of another interpretation. It may intend to convey that the rebellious tribes, in their defiant disregard of the old order of things, the order now represented by a hostile kingdom, went en masse to the opposite point of the compass, even to the unhallowed and hitherto despised sanctuary of the Danites. The LXX. (Vat.) addition here is noticeable, "And they forsook the house of the Lord."]
And he made an house of high places [See on 1 Kings 3:2, and cf. 2 Kings 17:29. It is often assumed (Keil, Rawlinson, al. after Josephus) that Jeroboam built two temples for his cherubim, and the statement of the text, that he built one, is explained on the ground that the historian contrasts the "house of high places" with the "house of the Lord." Ewald, too, after 2Ki 17:29, 2 Kings 17:32, understands the words as plural. But is it not more probable that a chapel or sanctuary already existed at Dan, where an irregular priesthood had ministered for more than four hundred years? This verse would then refer exclusively to Jeroboam's procedure at Bethel (see next verse). There he built a temple and ordained a number of priests, but Dan had both already. We know that the Danite priests carried on the calf worship to the time of the captivity (Judges 18:30). This "house of high places" has grown in Ewald's pages into "a splendid temple in Canaanite style"], and made priests of the lowest of the people [Heb. מִקְצוֹת "from the ends," i.e; from all classes, ex universe populo (Gesen.), and not, as the writer explains presently, from the tribe of Levi alone. Genesis 19:4, Judges 18:2, Ezekiel 33:2, prove this to be the correct interpretation of the word. Rawlinson, who remarks that "Jeroboam could have no motive for specially selecting persons of low condition," does not thereby dispose of the A.V. rendering, for the historian might mean that some of Jeroboam's priests were of the lowest stamp, because he could find no others, or because he was so little scrupulous as to take them. "Leaden priests are well fitted to folder. deities" (Hall)], which were not of the sons of Levi. [Jeroboam would doubtless have been only too glad to have retained the services of the Levitical priests, but they went over in a body to Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:13). The statement of Ezekiel 33:14, that, "Jeroboam and his sons" had "cast them out," suggests that they had refused to take part in his new cult and that thereupon he banished them, and, no doubt, confiscated their possessions. The idea of Stanley, that "following the precedent of the deposition of Abiathar by Solomon, he removed from their places the whole of the sacerdotal order," is a wild conjecture for which Scripture affords not the slightest warrant.]
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah [i.e; the Feast of Tabernacles, which was held on the 15th of the seventh month (of. 1 Kings 8:2). This was the great feast of the year, and, as the feast of harvest or ingathering, the most joyous. See on 1 Kings 8:1. Had Jeroboam provided no counter attraction to this great festive gathering in Judah he might have found it a formidable temptation to his subjects. The reason usually given for the alteration of the time—in defiance of the law, which expressly fixed it in the seventh month (Leviticus 23:34, Leviticus 23:39, Leviticus 23:41)—is that the eighth would be more generally convenient in the north, where the harvest or vintage was a month later (Then; Keil), as affording more time for the ingathering. In favour of this view is the consideration that the Jews not unfrequently had to intercalate a month—a second Adar—into their year, because of the season being a late one. Some of the older commentators, e.g; Vatab; think this time was chosen as the anniversary of his secession, but this is pure conjecture, and such an association would be contrary to the genius of the Hebrew people. Keil maintains that Jeroboam's design was to "make the separation, in a religious point of view, as complete as possible." But we can hardly be expected to believe that he altered the month, for the sake of creating a distinction, but "retained the day of the month, the fifteenth, for the sake of the weak who took offence at his innovations" (Keil). The day was retained, as Bähr points out, because, the months being lunar, the fifteenth was the day of the full moon], and he offered [Heb. as marg; "and he went up," i.e; ascended the altar; LXX. ἀνέβη. the altar was always raised. It was probably approached by s slope, as Exodus 20:26 forbade steps, though it is by no means certain that they were not used even in Solomon's temple, and Jeroboam probably would have no scruples on such a minute point of ritual. It has been thought (Kitto, 4:147) that he was moved to officiate in person by the precedent of the Egyptian kings, who exercised priestly functions; but it is much more probable that he was guided by the example of Solomon at the dedication of the temple] upon [i.e; he stood upon the ledge or platform (called in the A.V. "compass," Exodus 27:5) in the middle of the altar] the altar. So did he in Bethel [i.e; the feast was held at one centre only, and at Bethel alone the king offered in person. But I venture to suggest that instead of כֵן, "so did he," etc; we should read כִי. The LXX. seem to have had this word before them—ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ὃ εποίησεν ἐν βαιθὴλ. And not only does this slight change bring the Hebrew into harmony with the LXX; but it also simplifies the construction. "He went up upon the altar which he made to sacrifice unto the calves which he made." The very tautology is instructive, as suggesting that altar, calves, and priests were all of Jeroboam's making, not of God's ordaining. The use of כי as a relative (= אֲשֶׁר) is strictly grammatical], sacrificing [marg; to sacrifice] unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel [Dan being already provided with its priesthood] the priests of the high places [i.e; of "the house of high places" (verse 31). Or it may be a contemptuous designation of Jeroboam's irregular priests] which he had made.
So he offered [Heb. went up, as before. This verse is really the introduction to the history of the next chapter] upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised [Josephus (Ant. 7.8. 5) seems unaware that this new feast was kept at a different date from the true Feast of Tabernacles. But these words are decisive] of his own heart [The Cethib has מִלְּבֹּד by which Maurer and Keil understand מִלְּבַד ("seoreum." But qu.) But the Keri מִלּבּוֹ is every way to be preferred, So LXX; ἀπὸ καρδίας αὑτοῦ. Similarly, Nehemiah 6:8]; and ordered [rather, kept, celebrated] a feast unto [Heb. for] the children of Israel: and he offered [went up] upon the altar, and burnt incense [Heb. to burn, etc. The context seems to imply that it was not incense, or not incense only, but the sacrifice, or sacrificial parts of the victim, that the king burned. See on 1 Kings 13:3 (דֶּשֶׁן). And this meaning is justified by Le 1 Kings 1:9, 1Ki 1:17; 1 Samuel 2:16; Amos 4:5, where the same word is used. It cannot be denied, however, that the word is generally used of incense, and it is very probable that both this and sacrifices were offered by Jeroboam on the same altar (cf. 1 Kings 11:8). We may perhaps see in Jeroboam's ministering in person, not only the design to invest the new ordinance with exceptional interest and splendour, but also the idea of encouraging his new priests to enter on their unauthorized functions with. out fear. The history, or even the traditions, of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3.) and of Korah and his company (Numbers 16:40), and the threatenings of the law (Numbers 18:7, Numbers 18:22, cf. 2 Chronicles 26:20), may well have made them hesitate. To allay their fears the king undertakes to offer the first of the sacrifices. And that their fears of a Divine interposition were not groundless the sequel shows.]
HOMILETICS
The Sin of Jeroboam.
What was this sin, of which, from this time forward, the historian has so much to say? It is mentioned more than twenty times in Scripture. It casts its dark shadow across fifteen reigns of the kings of Israel. Its baleful influences were felt for more than two and a half centuries. It was the prime cause (2 Kings 17:21-12) of that captivity from which the ten tribes have never returned. Surely we ought to know what it was. And as one help to a right conclusion, let us first clearly understand what it was not.
I. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF REBELLION. There may have been sin in the way which the rupture with Judah was brought about (see 2 Chronicles 13:6, 2 Chronicles 13:7), though that is by no means certain (notes on 1 Kings 12:19, 1 Kings 12:20). But even if Israel was set upon rebellion, and even if Jeroboam had rudely and wickedly precipitated the revolt, that cannot be "the sin" of which he is here and elsewhere accused. For, in the first place, later kings could not be held responsible for Jeroboam's conduct at the time of the disruption, i.e; they could not commit that sin of Jeroboam; and, secondly, the disruption itself was ordained of God (1 Kings 11:31 sqq.; 1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chronicles 11:4). 1 Kings 12:15, too, is decisive. "The cause was from the Lord." Those who sate on Jeroboam's throne, consequently, no less than the successors of Solomon, reigned de jure Divino. The former equally with the latter were the anointed of Heaven (2 Kings 9:3, 2 Kings 9:6). It was the Lord "raised up" (1 Kings 14:14) Baasha (1 Kings 15:28, 1 Kings 15:29), Zimri (1 Kings 16:12), Jehu (2 Kings 9:6), and the rest.
II. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF GOING AFTER OTHER GODS. If this were the sin referred to here it would probably have been called "the sin of Solomon," for Solomon is twice charged with that sin (1 Kings 11:4, 1 Kings 11:10), whereas Jeroboam never went after Baal, or Ashtoreth, or Milcom. It is true the calves are once called "other gods" (1 Kings 14:9), but they are only so called in derision, and in 1 Kings 16:31 the sin of Jeroboam is expressly distinguished from the worship of other gods. It was probably Jeroboam's boast (see note on 1 Kings 16:28), not that he was instituting a new religion, or setting up a rival Deity, but that he was worshipping the one true God in a more rational and primitive way. See Jos; Ant. 8. 8.4. And that the calf. worship was not idolatry, properly so called, is clear from this consideration, that "the sin of Jeroboam" is confined to the kingdom of Israel. Not one of the kings of Judah is ever taxed with it. And yet it was in Judah, and not in Israel, that idolatry prevailed. Of the kings of Israel, only Ahab and his two sons were guilty of idolatry; whereas of the kings of Judah only five set their faces against it. Yet the non-idolatrous kings of Israel are constantly charged with Jeroboam's sin, and the idolatrous kings of Judah never. Polytheism, therefore, it cannot have been.
III. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF IMAGE WORSHIP. The calves were not made to be worshipped, any more than the cherubim of Solomon's temple. Nor do we read that they received Divine worship. "The people went to worship before the one," etc. The Scripture, it is true, calls them "molten images," but Jeroboam doubtless said they were symbols of the heavenly powers, designed (like the images of the Roman Communion) to be helps to devotion, and they are nowhere called "idols," or "horrors," or "statues." We entirely misconceive Jeroboam's purpose, and discredit his sagacity, if we think that he had the worship of Apis or Mnevis or any similar idol in his mind. The last thing that would occur to him would be to set up a purely pagan system amongst such a people as the Jews. His was not the sin of idol worship. What, then, was it?
I. IT WAS THE SIN OF HERESY. For "heresy" in the original meaning of the word simply implied an arbitrary selection of doctrines or practices—αἵρεσις = a choosing—instead of dutifully accepting those which God has enjoined. This is precisely what Jeroboam did. Instead of taking and handing down to his successors, whole and undefiled, the "faith once delivered," he presumed to modify it; to adapt it, as he thought, to the new order of things, etc. His heresy was threefold.
1. He chose his own places of worship. God had ordained that there should be one sanctuary for the whole nation. Both the law of Moses and the history of Israel alike taught that the religious centre of the nation should be one. From an early age it was predicted that God would choose Himself a place to put His name there (Deuteronomy 12:13, Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 14:23). And this Divine choice had been recently and unmistakably made. He "chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved." And He built His "sanctuary," etc. (Psalms 78:67-19; cf. Psalms 132:18, Psalms 132:14). At the dedication of this sanctuary this choice had been publicly proclaimed (1 Kings 8:10, 1Ki 8:11; 2 Chronicles 7:2, 2 Chronicles 7:12, 2 Chronicles 7:16). The whole nation then understood that God had "chosen Jerusalem to put His name there." And Jeroboam was aware of this, and was also aware that the division of the kingdom was to make no difference as to the oneness or the position of the sanctuary. To prevent misconception he was twice reminded in the message of Ahijah, his charter to the crown, that Jerusalem was "the city which God had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel" (1 Kings 11:32, 1 Kings 11:33). It was to be in the future, as it had been in the past, the one place of incense and sacrifice. And that Jeroboam knew it, his own thoughts (1 Kings 12:26, 1 Kings 12:27) reveal to us. "If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem." He is quite clear, then—indeed, he could not be otherwise—as to the place of God's choice. But that place, he argues, will not do for him. Political considerations demand that he shall find a religious centre elsewhere. So he "takes counsel," and decrees ex mero arbitrio that Israel shall have three holy places instead of one, and that Bethel and Dan shall henceforward divide the honours hitherto enjoyed by Jerusalem.
2. He chose his own modes of worship. Though the way in which God should be approached had been prescribed, though every detail of the Divine service had been ordered beforehand, and though he had been warned against adding aught to it or diminishing aught from it (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deu 12:1-32 :382), yet he decided otherwise. Perhaps he persuaded himself that he had good reasons for it; but all the same he chose otherwise than God had chosen. Though Exodus 20:4, etc; forbade the making of graven images, yet he "made molten images" (1 Kings 14:9). Though the law decreed that the sons of Aaron alone should offer sacrifice and burn incense, yet he determined to play the priest himself, and also "made him priests of the lowest of the people." Sic volo, sic jubeo, etc.
3. He chose his own times of worship. Nothing could have been more positively fixed than the date of the Feast of the Tabernacles. It was to be "the fifteenth day of the seventh month" (Leviticus 23:34, Leviticus 23:39). But this was not the day of Jeroboam's "choice." He "devised" a month "of his own heart;" he consulted, perhaps he thought, his people's convenience; but was there ever heretic yet that was not full of arguments, when all God asks is obedience?
"In religion
What dangerous error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament."
II. IT WAS THE SIN OF SCHISM. It is not without reason that in the Litany heresy and schism are coupled together, for the latter springs out of the former. Jeroboam's arbitrary choice led to a division in the Jewish Church. Let us briefly consider in what way the breach in the national unity, hitherto so close and conspicuous, was effected.
1. The one centre of unity gave place to three centres of division. Hitherto, three times a year (cf. 1 Kings 9:25) all the males of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, had gathered round one altar. Thither, "the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord." Now, instead of going, even from Dan, the people went to worship before the calves "even unto Daniel" The ten tribes turned their backs on Jerusalem, and sought, some of them, a sanctuary at the opposite point of the compass. Nor did those who worshipped at Bethel afford a less striking proof of disintegration, for that sanctuary was within sight of the temple mount. The two pillars of smoke ascending day by day from rival altars, but twelve miles apart, proclaimed to all that there was a "schism in the body."
2. The one priesthood of Aaron shared its ministry with the priests of Jeroboam. No longer were offerings brought exclusively to the sons of Levi, but "whosoever would" might burn the incense and sprinkle the blood. The schism was accentuated by the appointment of a new order of men, with vested interests in the perpetuation of division.
3. The one ritual of Divine obligation was travestied by rites and ceremonies of human appointment. If the breach was widened by the intrusive priesthood, it was deepened by the unauthorized and forbidden cultus of the calves. The stranger, who came out of a far country for God's name's sake (1 Kings 8:41, 1 Kings 8:42), to pray toward the house, found himself in the presence of rival systems, each claiming to be primitive and true, but differing so widely that he would go home to his own land, doubting whether both were not false. He would say, as others have said since, that before men compassed sea and land to make proselytes, they had better agree among themselves.
4. The one Feast of Tabernacles appointed of God was parodied by a Feast devised of man. That feast, the most joyous of the year, had once been the greatest manifestation of religious unity which Israel afforded. It was the very "dissidence of dissent" when the feast of the seventh month was straightway and ostentatiously followed by a feast of the eighth month, celebrated but a few miles distant. It was the culminating proof of διχο—στασία.
III. THE SIN OF KORAH (Numbers 16:1-4.) This has been already twice referred to, as a part of the heresy and as a factor in the schism. But it may well stand by itself as a substantive part of the sin. It was just as great a violation of the Divine law to use the ministry of unauthorized persons as to worship at shrines of man's choosing or with ordinances of man's devising.
This, then, was "the sin of Jeroboam." It was not rebellion, not idolatry, but the worship of the true God in unauthorized places, with unauthorized rites, and by unauthorized ministers. Nor did it make it less a sin that it seemed to prosper. The church of Jeroboam straightway became the church of the majority. At the time of the captivity it could boast of some antiquity (Judges 18:30; 2 Kings 17:16). But all the same God put His brand upon it. Three miracles (1 Kings 13:1-11.) were wrought as a testimony against it. The voices of the prophets were raised to condemn it (Hosea, passim; Micah 6:16, etc.) But from year to year and reign to reign it flourished, and bore its baleful fruit, and then, after the schism had lasted two hundred and fifty years, while the kingdom of Judah, despite its idolatries, still retained for 185 years longer its place in the covenant land, the ten tribes were carried away to the cities of the Medes, were "scattered beyond the river" and disappeared from the page of history.
And has this sin no lessons? has its punishment no warnings for ourselves? If, as some seem to think, we may pick and choose our doctrines at pleasure; if the Scripture is of private interpretation; if we are at liberty each one to set up his own dogmas against the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of the Catholic Church; or if there is no such thing as schism: if it is never mentioned or never reprobated in the New Testament; if the Babel of sects—there are over one hundred of them in this England of ours—is according to the plan and purpose of our Lord; or if, again, the "form of sound words," the depositum fidei, the creeds of the undivided Church, have no authority: if they can be added to by the autocrat of Rome, or diminished from by any state, or sect, or teacher; or, finally, if there is no such thing as a "mission" of Christ's ministers; if any man may take this honour to himself; if those who have never been sent themselves may nevertheless send others—then this history is void of all meaning. But if, on the other hand, Christianity is the child of Judaism, and the Christian Church the inheritor of the principles of the Jewish; if that church is One and Catholic and Apostolic; if the faith was once for all (ἅπαξ) delivered to the saints; if our Lord Christ sent His apostles even as the Father had seat Him (John 20:21), if they in turn "ordained elders in every city" (Titus 1:5; cf. 2 Timothy 2:2), and by laying on of hands (Acts 13:8); if the tactual succession is not a mere piece of priestly assumption—then assuredly the history of Jeroboam's sin is full of meaning, and "very necessary for these times." And the prominence accorded to it in Scripture, the twenty references to its working—we can understand it all when we remember that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," and that the Spirit that moved the prophets foresaw the manifold heresies and schisms of Christendom.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Jeroboam's Despondency.
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." Jeroboam's ambition was to be a king, and God gave him his desire. This was to punish Solomon and his house for their apostasy, and the men of Israel who had been led away in it. The sequel proved that the ambition of Jeroboam also brought its punishment, for he soon found his throne the reverse of a comfortable seat.
I. HIS FAITH IN HIS PEOPLE WAS SHAKEN.
1. They seem to have become resistive under his rule.
(1) This was likely to be the case. Their complaint against the house of David was the pressure of their burdens. But these could not be lightened when two kings had to be maintained instead of one; when a court had to be supported by a greatly diminished constituency.
(2) They had to create a capital worthy of the kingdom. So Jeroboam set about building Shechem, which was a ruin; for, two centuries before, it had been demolished by Abimelech (Judges 9:45). The cost of this, including that of the palace there, appears to have been so disagreeable, that Jeroboam, for his tranquillity, shifted his court to Penuel, on the east of the Jordan.
(3) Penuel now stood in need of improvements. It had suffered at the hands of Gideon nearly three centuries before, when the tower was destroyed (Judges 8:17). A second palace here was not likely to ease their burdens.
(4) Then their ability to pay taxes was reduced; for their commerce, created in the days of Solomon, seems to have declined. This would not improve their temper.
2. He therefore became gloomily apprehensive.
(1) He feared that, having now discovered that their burdens were no lighter, they might reflect that they had done wrong in throwing off allegiance to their legitimate sovereign, and that the "kingdom would return to the house of David."
(2) Further, that this disposition must be encouraged by their visits to Jerusalem for religious purposes (Deuteronomy 16:16, Deuteronomy 16:17). They would then see that neither Shechem nor Penuel, as capitals, could compare with Jerusalem.
(3) And he feared that a counter revolution must imperil his life, for Rehoboam would demand this as a condition of their reconciliation. But the true cause of his despondency was that—
II. HE HAD FORGOTTEN TO TRUST IN GOD.
1. Had he no assurance in the words of Ahijah?
(1) Did not Ahijah give him ten pieces of the rent garment? Did he not accompany the sign with assuring words? (Chronicles 1 Kings 11:37.) Has not this part of the prophecy been fulfilled?
(2) Is it not, therefore, in the power of Jeroboam to perpetuate his throne by faithfully serving God? (1 Chronicles 11:38.) The fulfilment of the former part of the prophecy surely pledges the latter.
(3) Ah, but this promise is conditional! So are all God's promises. If we comply not with the conditions we shall infallibly forfeit the kingdom of heaven.
2. But he was moved by ambition feather than piety.
(1) Had he complied with the holy conditions, instead of apprehending mischief to his throne from the visits of his subjects to Jerusalem, it would be the other way. For the more they learnt to love and serve God, the more loyal must they be to a godly king.
(2) But he felt in his soul that he had not so complied: nor had he any disposition to repent; therefore, instead of seeking help in God, as he should have done, he trusted to his own wicked policy. There is no real happiness without God. The very pinnacle of human ambition is a throne: yet without God is there no happiness here. "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"—M.
Jeroboam's Calves.
Unbelief is the root of all mischief. Had the king of Israel believed God, he would have obeyed Him; then he would have been under no temptation to set up a spurious religion to the confusion of his family and people. But what did he mean by these calves?
I. THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE IMAGES OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL.
1. So he describes them in the text.
(1) "These are thy Elohim, O Israel." Our English Bibles give the word "God" without the capital G, as though the purpose of Jeroboam were to lead the people away from the true God. This, indeed, was the effect, but that it was the design may well be doubted.
(2) He farther identifies the Elohim represented in them as having brought them up out of the land of Egypt. This expression is equivalent to saying that the Elohim he would remind them of in these figures was the same who wrought all the miracles of the Exodus.
(3) We must not be misled by the words, "Behold thy Elohim," or "These airs thy Elohim," as though he wished to impose these calves upon them as the very Elohim who wrought all the wonders of their miraculous history. For this is a Hebraism for similitudes (see Genesis 41:27; Daniel 2:38; 1 Corinthians 10:4). Note: Romanists impose their monstrous transubstantiation upon those who have not discerned this.
2. His error was a reproduction of Aaron's.
(1) This will be clear from a comparison of the text with Exodus 32:4.
(2) Aaron could not, under the very shadow of the Shekinah, and within hearing of the voice of thunder from Sinai, have intended to substitute his calf for the very Elohim.
(3) But that he only intended it as an emblem of the true God is placed very clearly before us in the words following (Exodus 32:5, Exodus 32:6), in which the feast celebrated before his calf is called a "feast of Jehovah"
3. Yet this was idolatry.
(1) Idolatry may consist of worshipping the creature instead of the Creator. This the Romanist does when he worships the wafer.
(2) Or it may be substituting some imagination of his heart for the God who has miraculously revealed Himself, and whose revelations concerning Himself are written in Holy Scripture. Such were the idealizations of the ancient (and also modern) heathen.
(3) Or it may consist in attempting to worship the true God through unauthorised images (see Exodus 20:4). This was the case with Aaron, also with Jeroboam. It is likewise the case with the Romanist, who uses crucifixes, and images and pictures of the Persons of the Trinity.
II. BUT WHY DID HE MAKE CALVES?
1. He had the cherubim in his mind.
(1) These had the visage of a calf. They had, indeed, also the visages of a lion, of a man, and of an eagle. But the whole figure terminated in the foot of a calf (Ezekiel 1:7).
(2) Jeroboam's calf probably had also associated with it the other visages of the cherubim; so probably had Aaron's, for they respectively call their image by the plural name Elohim (אלהים). The single image at Bethel is also called calves (עלגים) in the plural, which suggests a plurality of visages, though not necessarily visages of calves, for the whole emblem appears to have been designated by this name.
2. But the cherubim were emblems of the Holy Trinity.
(1) The calf or young bull, which by the ancients was taken for an emblem of fire, stood here for the first Person of the Godhead. (See Bato's "Critica Hebraea," under עגל and כרוב; also his learned "Inquiry into the Occasional and Standing Similitudes of the Lord God in the Old and New Testaments.")
(2) The lion was the symbol of light, and stood for the second Person. With the face of the lion that of the man was constantly associated, foreshadowing the assumption of the manhood into the Godhead by that blessed Person.
(3) And the eagle, the emblem of air, stood for the Holy Spirit.
(4) These, therefore, are called the cherubim, or similitudes of the Great Ones, from רבים Great Ones, and כlike.
3. Micah's teraphim were like Jeroboam's calves.
(1) They were a compound or plural image like the cherubim, and used like them (see Judges 17:5, Judges 18:5).
(2) Michael was a worshipper of the true God, and so was Laban, who also used teraphim (see Genesis 31:19, Genesis 31:30, Genesis 31:37, Genesis 31:49),
(3) Compare also 1 Samuel 19:13; Ezekiel 21:21; Hosea 3:4.
(4) The cerberus of the pagans, with its plurality of heads, was a corruption, and the name of that monster keeps up the sound, of the original Hebrew cherubim. How subtle is the spirit of idolatry! We cannot keep too close to God's Word.—M.
Jeroboam's Sin.
The king of Israel, moved by personal ambition instead of zeal for God, fearing lest his people, in going to Jerusalem to worship, should see reason to regret having rent the kingdom, took counsel to prevent this. The result was the development of the policy described in the text. It was cunning—
I. IN THE KIND OF WORSHIP IMPOSED.
1. As to its objects.
(1) It purported to be the worship of the God of Israel Essentially the same with the worship at Jerusalem. Thus it conciliated favour. Had it been the worship of any god of the nations, opposition would have been provoked.
(2) Yet was it idolatry. So in like manner is much of the worship of modern times which passes under the name of Christianity. Satan does not lose his identity by transforming himself into an angel of light.
2. As to its modes.
(2) Its images were imitations of the cherubim. Such also were the teraphim. And as God was said to dwell in, not "between" (ישב is to inhabit), the cherubim, so Jeroboam directed his dupes to seek the God of Israel in his calves.
(2) With these were associated altars, for sacrifice and incense, like those in the temple; and the victims would be clean animals proper for sacrifice; the incense also would be similar to that burnt in Jerusalem.
(3) He had a Feast of Tabernacles, which is described in the text as "like unto the feast that is in Judah." Only that he altered the date as well as the place from the fifteenth day of the seventh month to the corresponding day of the month following. It is significantly noted, "which he had devised of his own heart" (see Num 15:1-41 :89). He was a forerunner of another character who has not hesitated to "change times and laws" (Daniel 7:25).
3. As to its ministers.
(1) His priests were Levites, where he could get them. In this he seems to have succeeded at Daniel For the descendants of Jonathan, who was of the family of Aaron, appear to have fallen in with his designs (see Judges 18:30).
(2) But it was different at Bethel. Here the Levites, it is to be hoped, had too much principle to serve his calves. So "he made priests of the lowest of the people."
(3) Amongst these he officiated himself. Morally he was indeed amongst the lowest of the people, notwithstanding his position as king. This, unhappily, was not sufficiently discerned. The wicked do not understand (Daniel 12:10).
II. IN THE PLACES CHOSEN FOR THAT WORSHIP.
1. Dan was chosen with sagacity.
(1) This was a city in the north, whose Canaanitish name was Laish, but which, when conquered by the Danites, received the name of their father (Judges 18:29-7). This would be convenient to the people living so distant from Jerusalem.
(2) Besides, from its founding, this city was sacred to the worship of God through the medium of teraphim. This was about the time of Joshua's death when Phinehas ministered at the tabernacle at Shiloh (compare Judges 20:27, Judges 20:28). From these very teraphim, when they were in the house of Micah, God gave responses to Jonathan the priest.
(3) For the teraphim of Micah, which were carved blocks covered with silver Jeroboam substituted one of his calves, which was covered with gold; otherwise there does not appear to have been any material change in the worship there. So the prejudices of the people would not be shocked.
2. Bethel also was chosen with sagacity.
(1) This was in the southern part of the kingdom, to accommodate those who might otherwise go to Jerusalem through convenience of distance. How adroitly do the wicked place their snares!
(2) This place, too, had a memorable history. It was the scene of the vision of the ladder and renewal of the covenant with Jacob, in token of which the patriarch vowed to the Lord, anointed a pillar, and built an altar (Genesis 28:19, Genesis 28:20; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:1, Genesis 35:7). It was one of the stations of Samuel, and a place to which, in his days, the people were accustomed to go up to worship (1 Samuel 7:16; 1 Samuel 10:3).
(3) Here, accordingly, Jeroboam fixed his headquarters, and built a pretentious temple, or "house of high places" (verse 31).
Thus practically did Jeroboam say, with another purpose in his heart, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem." Beware of religion made easy; it may laud you in perdition. Beware of imitations of Divine things. Keep rigidly to the Word of God.—M.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
The Sin of Jeroboam.
This passage describes the act which is so often referred to with horror, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, as "the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat." To an irreligious man like himself, nothing would appear more natural or politic than this conduct. He had been driven into Egypt by Solomon, had there married Pharaoh's daughter, and become familiar with the worship of Apis and Mnevis. Now he had returned, and found himself the ruler of the ten tribes, the first king of the separate "kingdom of Israel." Recognizing as he did the religious tendencies and memories of his people, he saw that the national assemblies for worship in the temple at Jerusalem would, sooner or later, unite the tribes again under one king. Hence his action. Looking at his conduct
(1) from the earthward, and
(2) from the heavenward side, we see that his policy was at once shrewd and sinful.
I. THE SHREWDNESS OF JEROBOAM'S POLICY.
(1) It was an appeal to tribal independence. In effect he said, "Why should you men of Ephraim be dependent for your worship on Judah? Why should your tribute go to support their temple? Let us have a place of our own." This argument has been repeated by demagogues in every land and age. Class has been set against class, nation against nation, Church against Church, by this spirit. Show some of the advantages of recognizing our interdependence.
(2) It was an appeal to self-indulgence. "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem." Point out instances in which religious teachers have condescended to such base suggestions as this; e.g; the theology that declares self-conquest nothing, that makes faith the executioner, instead of the sustainer of morality; the teaching that will offer "indulgences" to those of sinful habit; the worship that pleases a sensuous taste, but demands no intelligent thought, etc.
3. It was an appeal to former memories. He made Shechem his capital, a place associated with Abraham and Jacob, and afterwards assigned to the Levites, and made a free city. He erected one of the calves at Bethel, a holy place on the borders of Benjamin and Ephraim (see Genesis 32:1.). No doubt his design was to conciliate those who were proud of past history.
4. It was a bold attempt to deceive the devout. He pretended that it was the old worship reestablished; that Jehovah was really represented by the calves: "These be thy gods (the old gods) that brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Not the first or last time in which the prince of darkness has appeared as an angel of light Shrewd as was the policy, it was not perfectly successful even during his reign. The best people emigrated to Judah (like the Huguenots to England), to enrich another kingdom by work and wealth; and the prophets and many of the priests were roused to hostility. Even had it succeeded, however, such policy deserved to be branded with infamy. Principle must never be sacrificed to expediency. Success never condones wrong doing with God.
II. THE SINFULNESS OF JEROBOAM'S POLICY.
1. It revealed his utter distrust of God. See the promise that had been given him (1 Kings 11:38): "I will build thee a sure house." He could not believe it. He would trust his own skill rather than God's favour. So had it been with Saul and Solomon. The path of simple obedience is strait and narrow, and few there be that find it." "Do My will and trust Me," is the lesson of life, but we are slow to learn it. Many professing Christians consider religion inappropriate to business competition and to political movements. In this they resemble the son of Nebat.
2. It violated the fundamental law of the Decalogue. If the first command was not actually broken, the second was, necessarily. Had these calves merely been the outward symbols of Jehovah, they were amongst the forbidden "images." Jeroboam knew this. He remembered the calf Aaron made, for his words were an echo of those of the first high priest. He knew that only the intercession of Moses then saved the people from destruction, yet again he defiantly disobeyed. Show the peril of allowing images, crucifixes, banners, the elements in the sacrament, etc; to take a false position in Christian worship. Even if the initiated worship God through these, they break (in spirit) the second command; while the more ignorant are with equal certainty led to the violation of the first.
3. It involved and necessitated other sins.
(1) The people worshipped in the place God had not chosen, as He had chosen the temple.
(2) They had no ark of the covenant on which rested, and because of which was promised, the real presence of God.
(3) The priests were chosen by the king in opposition to the ordinance of God (1 Kings 12:31, etc; ex universo populo.
(4) The national feast of tabernacles was changed from the seventh month (Leviticus 23:34) to the eighth, not only because the harvest was later in the north than in the south of Judah, but to widen insidiously the breach between the kingdoms. So in all ages and in all spheres one sin leads to another. It would be better to die as Abigail (1 Kings 14:13) than to reign as Jeroboam.—A.R.
HOMILIES BY J. WAITE
The Golden Calves.
Jeroboam here earns for himself that name of evil repute—"the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." As the leader in the revolt of the ten tribes he was simply fulfilling a Divine purpose. "The thing was from the Lord,"—the ordained penalty of Solomon's transgression (1 Kings 11:31, 1 Kings 11:38). But this setting up of the golden calves, this only too successful attempt to sever the sacred bond that bound the people of the whole land in one common allegiance to the temple and the great invisible King who sat enthroned there, bore a widely different character. This was not "from the Lord." It was wholly evil. "The thing became a sin," and the sin of Jeroboam Became the prolific source of sin in Israel through all succeeding generations (see 1 Kings 14:7-11). This transaction illustrates—
I. THE FATAL PERVERSITY OF A LAWLESS AMBITION. This was Jeroboam's ruin. God, by the prophet Ahijah, had promised to establish him in the kingdom on certain conditions (1 Kings 11:38). There was no wrong in the mere fact of his seeking to verify this prediction. His sin lay in the nature of the means he adopted. He thought it needful in order to his having a "sure house" that the people should be kept from going up to sacrifice at Jerusalem. In other words, he would strengthen his house at the expense of doing deep dishonour to the "House of the Lord." His own petty kingship was more to him than the infinite Majesty of Jehovah. Thus we see how a carnal ambition
(1) is subject to needless fears;
(2) trifles with or defies a power that it finds to be infinitely stronger than itself;
(3) thinks to secure its ends by means that actually defeat them;
(4) is deceived by its seeming successes.
History is full of examples of the way in which men have sought power for themselves, either by the abuse or the degradation of things sacred, or have thought to serve ends right in themselves by unrighteous means. This was one form of Satanic temptation to which our blessed Lord was subject. "All these things will I give thee," etc. (Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9), and his professed followers have too often fallen before it,
II. THE ARTIFICE OF A WICKED PURPOSE. This is seen in the way in which Jeroboam practised craftily, upon the religious sentiment of the people in the service of his own ambitious designs.
(1) He pandered to their idolatrous propensities. The "golden calves" may have been intended as a memorial rather than a representation of the Deity. But they were too suggestive of the base, sensuous worship of Egypt, and violated the second commandment if not the first.
(2) He made pretence of consulting their ease and convenience. "It is too much for you," etc.
(3) He took advantage of the sacred associations of Bethel and Dan, as if the place would hallow the proceeding.
(4) He instituted a priestly order as a substitute for the Levites.
(5) He ordained festivals that should rival those of Judah and Jerusalem. In all this, while affecting to do honour to the traditions of religion, he struck a fatal blow at the religious unity and integrity of the nation, turning the highest sanctities of its life into an occasion of sin. How forcibly are we reminded that iniquity assumes its most hateful form when it prostitutes to its own ends things sacred and Divine. Satan is never so Satanic as when he wears the garb of "an angel of light." The most detestable of all vices is hypocrisy. More deadly injury has been done to the cause of religion by its false friends than its bitterest enemies could ever inflict.
III. THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES. Jeroboam's wicked policy perpetuated and multiplied in Israel the evils of which the rending of the kingdom at first had been the penalty. With few exceptions all the kings that followed him "did evil in the sight of the Lord," and the record of their reigns is little else than a story of crime and bloodshed and misery. Moreover the leprosy of idolatry spread from the throne down through all classes of the people until the kingdom of Israel was completely overthrown and the ten tribes were carried captive into Assyria. Such are the woes that fall on a land when its princes are corrupt and reprobate. So true is it that "they that sow to the wind shall reap the whirlwind."—W.