EXPOSITION
THE REIGN OF REHOBOAM.—
And Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty [or twenty. See on 1 Kings 12:1] and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned [this reign is related at greater length in 2 Chronicles 11:1-14; 2 Chronicles 12:1-14.] seventeen years [cf. 1 Kings 15:1] in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose [cf. 1 Kings 11:36; Psalms 78:68; Nehemiah 1:9] out of all the tribes of Israel [cf. 2 Chronicles 6:6; 2 Kings 21:7] to put his name there. The historian reminds us that Jerusalem was by God's appointment the religious centre of the land; that Bethel and Dan were no sanctuaries of His choosing; and that, however much the realm of Rehoboam was restricted, he still reigned in the capital of God's choice. It is possible the words have some reference to the next verse, and imply that, though it was the holy city, yet even there they fell away from God (Bähr). And his mother's name was Naamah [or, according to the LXX; Naanan. See on 1 Kings 12:24], an [Heb. the, i.e; the well-known] Ammonitess. [The name of the mother is given with every king of Judah, principally because of the position of influence she occupied in the kingdom. See on 1 Kings 2:13, and 1 Kings 2:31 below.]
And Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord [not, however, before the fourth year of Rehoboam's reign. For the first three Fears the nation remained steadfast in the faith, and the kingdom was greatly strengthened and consolidated. The defection commenced when Rehoboam began to feel himself secure (2 Chronicles 12:1). It is to be observed, however, that the historian says "Judah" (not Rehoboam) "did evil," etc. It is probable that a considerable section of the people approved of the idolatrous practices introduced in the preceding reign, and that Rehoboam was unable to repress them. It was his misfortune to have to reap the bitter fruits of Solomon's unfaithfulness], and they provoked him to jealousy [Heb. made him jealous. Same word, Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:14; Numbers 5:14. The words of the covenant proclaimed the Lord a,' jealous God." This is of course anthropomorphic language. The nation was regarded as the bride of Jehovah, and God is said to be made jealous, because idolatry was unfaithfulness to Him. The worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, it must be remembered, involved unutterable immoralities, hence the special fitness of the word, which is only used of idolatry of one kind or other] with their sins which they had committed [Heb. sinned] above all that their fathers had done.
For they also [i.e; they as well as the ten tribes] built them high places [i.e; houses of high places. See on 1 Kings 3:2 and 1 Kings 13:32] and images [Heb. pillars or statues (מַחֵּבוֹת; LXX; στήλας). These were, no doubt, originally memorial pillars or stones, erected to commemorate some Divine manifestation, and with no thought of idolatry (see Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:14, Genesis 35:20; Genesis 28:18). But the Canaanites erected pillars, which were also statues or images, to their god, Baal. Hence we read of the "image" (מַחֵּבָה) of Baal (2 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings 10:26, 2 Kings 10:27; cf. 2 Kings 18:4; 2 Kings 23:14); and hence also we find such images frequently mentioned side by side with the so-called "groves," i.e; the "Asherahs" (verse 15; Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 12:3; Deuteronomy 16:21, etc.) Both the Mazzebah and the Asherah, consequently, was an upright pillar or post, but the former was of stone, the latter of wood; the former dedicated to Baal, the god of nature, of generation; the latter to Ashtoreth, the goddess of nature and productive power. The gradual transition of the memorial pillar into the Baal statue is hinted at in Leviticus 26:1. It is observable that these idolatrous and immoral rites seem to have found a home in Judah before they were introduced into Israel] and groves [Asherahs, idols; see on verse 15. This verse proves conclusively that the translation "grove" is a mistaken one] on every high hill, and under every green tree. [The phrase is from the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 12:2; cf. Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:6; Hosea 4:13. "Probably the evil example of Maachah, his favourite wife (2 Chronicles 11:20-14), whose idolatrous tastes were displayed under Asa (2 Chronicles 15:16), was not without a pernicious effect on Rehoboam" (Wordsworth).]
And there were also Sodomites [קָדֵשׁ, a collective noun = הַקְּדֵשִׁים (1 Kings 15:12) = consecrated persons or devotees, because they were set apart to the service of Astarte, the Dea Syria. It is clear from Deuteronomy 23:18 (Heb.) that male prostitutes are here spoken of, the name of the female being קְדֵשָׁה. The former is described in Deuteronomy 23:19 50.c. as a dog, the latter as a whore] in the land [cf. 1 Kings 15:12. It is highly probable that these infamous persons were of Canaanite or Phoenician origin (this being a Phoenician superstition, Movers, "Phoniz." 1:671), but it is somewhat precarious to found an assertion to that effect on these last words (as Bähr)], and [Heb. omits and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations [see Leviticus 18:20.; Deuteronomy 18:9-5] which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. ["Here we see a reason for God's command, requiring the extirpation of the Canaanites" (Wordsworth).]
And it came to pass in the fifth year [that is, two years after king and people forsook the law of the Lord (2 Chronicles 12:11). Retribution seems to have overtaken Judah sooner than Israel. They had the less excuse, and they seem to have plunged deeper into idolatry and immorality] of King Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt [to whom Jeroboam had fled (1 Kings 11:26, 1 Kings 11:40)] came up against Jerusalem. [This expedition is related with somewhat more of detail in 2 Chronicles 12:2-14. For Shishak, see 1 Kings 11:40. It was in the twentieth year of his reign that Shishak, once Jeroboam's protector and friend, invaded Palestine. It has been conjectured (Ewald, al.) that he was incited so to do by Jeroboam, and that the two kings waged war against Judah in concert (see on 1 Kings 11:30). But as to this Scripture is silent; and moreover if Jeroboam summoned Shishak to his assistance, it is certain that his own kingdom did not altogether escape invasion; and it is perhaps more probable that the divided and weakened state of the country seemed to promise the Egyptian king an easy capture of Jerusalem, of the treasures of which he had doubtless heard. It is well known that a record of this expedition exists in the sculptures and inscriptions of the great temple at Karnak. The bassi relievi of the temple wall contain over 130 figures, representatives, as the names on the shields show, of so many conquered cities. Amongst these are found three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, viz; Shoco, Adoraim, and Aijalon (2 Chronicles 11:7-14), while many other towns of Palestine, such as Gibeon, Taanach, Shunem, Megiddo, etc; are identified with more or less of probability. One feature in the list is remarkable, viz; the number of Levitical and Canaanite ciies—cities of Israel—which Shishak is said to have conquered. The usual inference is that such cities, although in Jeroboam's dominions, had nevertheless held out against his rule—the former for religious reasons; the latter, perhaps, in the effort to recover their independence. Mr. Peele, however (Dict. Bib; art. "Egypt" ), accounts for the names on the supposition that Shishak directed, his forces against the northern as well as the southern kingdom, and certainly this seems to agree better with the facts. It is hardly likely that Jeroboam, with the army at his command, would tolerate so many centres of disaffection in his midst. Besides, the Levites, we are told, had migrated in a body to Judah; and the Canaanites at this period can hardly have been in a position to defy any Hebrew monarch. The silence alike of our historian and of the chronicler as to the invasion of Israel is easily accounted for by the fact that Judah bore the brunt of the war.]
And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord [The historian omits to mention the interposition of Shemaiah (2 Chronicles 12:5-14). The account of the Chronicles is altogether much fuller], and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all [rather, "and everything (sc. that he could lay his hands on) he took away." The spoil must have been enormous]: and he took away all the shields of gold [cf. 1 Kings 10:17] which Solomon had made.
And king Rehoboam made in their stead brazen shields [lit; shields of brass or copper; a striking token of the decadence of the kingdom; cf. 1 Kings 9:28; 1 Kings 10:22. "He changed his father's religion, as his shields, from gold to brass" (Hall) I, and comttted [Heb. appointed] them unto the hands of the chief of the guard [Heb. commanders of the runners (see on 1 Kings 1:38)], which kept the door of the king's house. [Cf. 2 Kings 11:6. The functions of the bodyguard were very varied. A primary duty was, obviously, to supply sentinels and attendants for the palace.]
And it was so, when the king went unto the house of the Lord, that the guards [runners] bare them [Whatever idolatries Rehoboam tolerated or encouraged, it is clear that he maintained the temple worship with great pomp and circumstance. The state visits of the Sultan to the Mosque may perhaps be best compared with these processions. Ewald sees in this circumstance a proof of Rehoboam's vanity. The brazen shields were "borne before him in solemn procession, as if everything were the same as before"], and brought them back into the guard chamber [Heb." chamber of the runners." Solomon's golden shields were kept "in the house of the forest of Lebanon" (1 Kings 10:17). These shields of Brass were of so little value that the guard chamber sufficed for their custody.
Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? [See on 1 Kings 14:19.]
And there was war [cf. 2 Chronicles 12:15, "wars." Keil argues from the prohibition of war by Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:23) that this must mean "hostility, enmity." But מִלְחָמָה surely implies more than angry feelings or a hostile attitude; and it is highly probable that, even if there were no organized campaigns, a desultory warfare was constantly carried on on the borders of the two kingdoms. It is also possible that Jeroboam took a part in the war of Shishak] between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days.
And Rehoboam slept with his fathers [The same formula as in 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; 1Ki 15:8, 1 Kings 15:24, etc. It is used of nearly all the kings of Judah], and was buried with his fathers [These words go to prove, against Gesenius, that the phrase "slept (lit. lay down) with his fathers" is not to be interpreted of Sheol, but of the grave; see on 1 Kings 2:10] in the city of David. And his mother's name was Naamah, an Ammonitess. [Same words as in 1 Kings 2:21. The repetition can hardly be, as Bähr, Wordsworth, al; imagine, designed, in order to show that the worship of Moloch was brought by her to Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7), and that she exercised a sinister influence upon her son. As she is twice called "the Ammonitess" it can hardly be doubted that she was one of the "Ammonitesses" (1 Kings 11:1, Hebrews) who turned away Solomon's heart; and it is also certain that Rehoboam did not inherit his folly from his father. At the same time these words are more easily accounted for on the supposition that the historian found them in this position in one or more of the documents from which he compiled his history. It is also to be remembered that some of these chronological statements are manifestly by a later hand, and have been transferred from the margin to the text. See on 1 Kings 6:1.] And Abijam [elsewhere called Abijah (2 Chronicles 12:16; 2 Chronicles 13:1), or Abijahu (2 Chronicles 13:21, Hebrews) Some MSS. have Abijah here. The variation is not easily accounted for except as a clerical error. The supposition of Lightfoot that the name was designedly altered by the historian to avoid the incorporation of the sacred JAH into the name of a bad man is too fanciful, the more so as Abijam was by no means an exceptionally bad king. It is, however, approved by Bähr and Rawlinson. But it is as little probable that Abijam is the original form of the name (Keil). The form Abijahu, the LXX. Ἀβιού, and the analogy of Abiel (1 Samuel 9:1) all make against this idea. On the whole, it is more likely that Abijam results from an error of transcription, הand the final םbeing easily confounded] his son reigned in his stead.
HOMILETICS
The Invasion of Shishak.
Three years after the death of David, the foundations of the temple, the glory of that age—some have called it orbis miraculum, the marvel of every age—were laid. Four years after the death of Solomon his son—some forty years, that is to say, after its foundation, three and thirty years after its completion, according to some only twenty years after its dedication—the treasures of that temple, its gold and gems, were carried off by an invader. A short time after his accession, again, Solomon made alliance with the strongest and proudest of the empires of that age, with Egypt, and a Hebrew, one whose forefathers were Pharaoh's bondmen, was gladly recognized as great Pharaoh's son-in-law. A short time after his death, this same Egyptian kingdom is become an assailant of Solomon's son, and Pharaoh is turned to be the oppressor and plunderer of his realm. For a great part of Solomon's reign it was the boast of the people that an Egyptian princess occupied one of his splendid palaces in Jerusalem, but he has not been long dead before those same palaces are rifled by Egyptian princes, and Jerusalem is environed by the legions of Shishak.
And yet that temple, the magnificence of which has been so short-lived, which was hardly completed ere it was despoiled, was built to the name of the Lord, and as a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. And as such it was accepted by Him. That house had had a greater glory and consecration than of gold and precious stones, for "the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord" (1 Kings 8:11). Why, then, is it, we may well ask, as the men of that age would ask, that it is so soon left comparatively desolate? Cannot the Deity to whom it was dedicated protect it against spoliation. Or have His worshippers provoked Him to anger, so that He has "abhorred his sanctuary," and "delivered his glory into the enemies' hand"?
For we may be quite sure that there was a profound reason for this profound dishonour and disgrace. We cannot account for the fact that the temple of the Lord, the "house of the great God" (Ezra 5:8), was stripped bare and left a wreck within a few years of its erection, on the supposition that a chance happened to it, and that it only suffered as other shrines have done from the vicissitudes of fortune and the impartial, inevitable havoc of war. "In rebus bellicis," it has been said, "maxime dominatur Fortuna." But if we feel at liberty to interpret other histories by a theory of chance, that idea must be excluded in thinking of God's people. If their history was fortuitous, then the Old Testament is a delusion. No; we may not be able always to trace the finger of God in profane history, but it will be passing strange if we cannot recognize it here.
Now the immediate cause of the invasion was, no doubt, the divided and therefore weakened state of the kingdom. We might have been tempted to think that Jeroboam had summoned his patron Shishak to his aid, had we not proof that Israel as well as Judah suffered from this campaign. And of course it is possible that Jeroboam instigated a war which ultimately extended to his own kingdom. But it is obvious that Shishak would need no invitation to attack Jerusalem. The fame of its immense treasure is quite sufficient of itself to account for his advance. So long as it was guarded by the armies of Solomon it was secure. But Rehoboam, whose troops would not number a third of his father's, and who was paralyzed by the hostility of Israel crouching like a wild beast on his northern border, offered an easy prey to a general with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen, and "people without number" under his command.
We see, then, that it was the treasures of the Holy City—the vast accumulation of the precious metals—which excited the cupidity of the Egyptians, while theft defenceless state suggested the idea of seizing them. Observe here—
I. THE RETRIBUTION OF SOLOMON'S SIN.
1. Of his greed and pride. He has "multiplied silver and gold to himself" only to provoke an invasion of his territory and the humiliation of his people. If he had obeyed the law; if he had been content to embellish the house of the Lord and leave the palaces alone; if his overweening pride and his insatiable thirst for fame had not prompted him to amass treasures which excited universal attention, it is probable that Judah would have escaped invasion. In this case "pride has gone before destruction." The very magnitude of his treasures led to their dispersion.
2. Of his idolatry. We have already seen how this sin (1 Kings 11:5-11) was punished by the partition of his realm. In the plunder of his palaces, provoked and made possible by that division, we see a further recompense of his outrage and defiance of the almighty. The hills on which his idol altars were erected now swarmed with idolaters, assembled not to sacrifice, but to slay. We are reminded here of the retribution which befell the Jerusalem of a later day. On one of the hills before Jerusalem the Jews raised a cross—they crucified the Prince of Life. On all the hills that are round about Jerusalem, the Romans raised crosses, the crosses of His murderers (Jos; Bell. Jud. Romans 5:11.Romans 5:1).
3. Of his multiplication of horses. For it is to be remembered from what quarter the retribution came. There is an exquisite judicial propriety in an invasion from Egypt, and an invasion of chariots and horses. This was retaliation in the proper sense of the word; it was like for like. Why, there was almost a beaten track made for those same chariots by the horses and chariots which Solomon had imported in such prodigious numbers. Literally the trade horses paved the way for the horses of war. This illegal traffic had long since familiarized Egyptian charioteers with the shortest way to the Holy City.
4. Of his multiplication of wives. Solomon's lawful wife came from Egypt. Had he been true to her, he would probably have been true to his Lord God (1 Kings 11:3), and so his realm would have escaped invasion. It is a kind of Nemesis for the wrong done to his Egyptian consort that his harem was plundered by Egyptians. There are those who connect Napoleon's fall with the repudiation of Josephine. The "judge of the widow" (Psalms 68:5) is also the avenger of the injured and dishonoured wife (Hebrews 13:4). Human laws seldom take cognizance of these, the deepest of wrongs, but the cry of the heart-broken woman goes up into the ears of One who has said, "I will repay."
II. THE PUNISHMENT OF REHOBOAM'S FOLLY AND SIN.
1. Of his obstinacy. For in the first place, but for his infatuation, humanly speaking, the kingdom would have escaped division, and the land would have escaped invasion. That infatuation, it is true, was the product of his breeding and his training, but that consideration does not wholly exonerate him from blame. No man can charge his parents or surroundings with his sin. The law does not excuse the thief on the ground that from infancy he has been taught to steal. Rehoboam was a free agent, and ought to have acted otherwise, and doubtless he knew it when it was too late.
2. Of his pride. It was his pride had rejected all compromise, and had prated of scorpions, etc. It had been humbled once in the dismemberment of his realm. It must be humbled again in the spoliation of his palaces. For observe, it was when he "had strengthened himself" (2 Chronicles 12:1) that Shishak came to prove his weakness. St. Paul is not the only one who has had to learn the lesson, "When I am weak, then am I strong." It is extremely probable that this vainglorious prince, after losing most of his realm, still piqued himself on the abundance of his treasures. His trust was in his shields of gold. So he must be reduced to shields of pinchbeck.
3. Of his infidelity. "He forsook the law of the Lord" (2 Chronicles l.c.) Much as his father had done before him. "What the old sing," says the German proverb, "the young chirp." That is to say, he still worshipped Jehovah (verse 28; cf. 1 Kings 9:25), but he sanctioned, or did not suppress, idolatry. The son of an Ammonitess, he would find it difficult to trample on the gods of his mother (1 Kings 11:5), and he was probably too much afraid of another insurrection to stamp out the abominations of verses 28, 24.
III. THE RECOMPENSE OF ISRAEL'S IDOLATRIES. Though the chronicler informs us that Rehoboam "forsook the law and all Israel with him," yet it seems probable from verses 22, 24, "And Judah did evil," etc; that he rather followed than led his people. He could hardly fail, at first, to see that his strength lay in a rigid adherence to the law; that his policy was one of piety. The Levites and others who streamed into Judah, shocked by the innovations of Jeroboam, cannot fail to have suggested that his role was orthodoxy. It is probable, therefore, that it was not until a large section of his people, infected with the superstitions and vices they had learned in Solomon's reign, clamoured for the tolerance of shameful shrines, that he yielded to idolatry. Verse 25 seems to connect the invasion directly with the people's sin. But for the high places and images. etc; the land would have been spared this humiliation. It is to be carefully noted that, so long as king and people served the Lord, Shishak was held back from attacking them. Hence we understand why Judah receives earlier and greater stripes than Israel It was Jeroboam made Israel to sin. It was Judah made Rehoboam to sin. The guilty people, accordingly, are punished by the invasion of their land and the spoliation of their treasure; the guilty king by the destruction of his house. And here again, let us observe, how significant that the chastisement should come from Egypt. Time was when God had punished the idolatries of Egypt through the instrumentality of the Jewish people (Exodus 7-14.) Now the tables are turned, and Egypt is employed to avenge the idolatries of Judah. This was the first time that an Egyptian army had crossed their border—the first time, indeed, that the land had sustained the brunt of any invasion. It was the Sodomites and the like had drawn forth those swords from their scabbards. What a contrast between Exodus 14:1-2. and 1 Kings 14:1-11. Israel, who then "saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore," now feels the grip of Pharaoh at his throat, and the iron of Pharaoh in his soul.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
The Sin of Judah.
Having discoursed of Jeroboam and the kingdom of Israel, the sacred historian now returns to Rehoboam and the sister kingdom of Judah. To have found a better state of things here would have been refreshing, but in this we are disappointed. How fearful was the moral state of the whole world in those days!
I. JUDAH HAD FALLEN INTO THE GROSSEST IDOLATRY.
1. He had multiplied high places.
(1) High places were not necessarily for idolatry. They were proper to the worship of the true God in patriarchal times.
(2) Even after God had chosen Jerusalem to put His name there, the patriarchal use of high places was upon special occasions sanctioned by Him (see 1 Kings 18:38).
(3) In Judah there was little need for these, since the extremity of the kingdom was not very remote from Jerusalem. The distance to Beersheba would be about forty British statute miles.
(4) But the high places of Judah were mainly designed for idolatry. Hence their association in the text with" images-and groves" and rites of Sodomites and other Canaanitish abominations.
2. He had built many temples.
(1) The term (מצבות) here translated "images" is elsewhere commonly rendered pillars (see Genesis 28:18; Genesis 31:51; Genesis 35:20; Exodus 24:4; Isaiah 19:19). It is far from evident that this word is ever used for any image or figured thing. In places where it is construed "images," pillars would give as good sense (see Exodus 23:24; 2 Kings 10:26, 2 Kings 10:27). Marginal readings bear this out (see Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 16:22).
(2) It is probable these pillars were distributed in ranks, as those of the Druids at Stonehenge and Abiry, to serve as temples in which the powers of the material heavens were worshipped.
3. He had enshrined idols in these.
(1) The Asherim (אשרים) are here evidently misrendered "groves;" for how could groves be planted under every green tree? (See Homily on 1 Kings 14:15, 1 Kings 14:16, supra.)
(2) They were idols apparently in figure like goats. For Jeroboam "ordained him priests for the high places and for the devils (שעדים goats), and for the calves which he had made" (2 Chronicles 11:15). Here we have no mention of Ashorim; of goats, however, we have mention. But when Josiah destroyed these things, there is mention of the Ashorah, but no mention of the goat (compare 2 Kings 23:15). The Asherah destroyed by Josiah appears, then, to be the goat which Jeroboam had set up.
(3) These Asherim, or Asheroth—for they appear to have been male and female idols—were supposed to convey blessings to their worshippers, and hence their name (from אשר to proceed, to bless).
4. His idolatry was attended with shocking cites.
(1) They were the very abominations for which the land had spewed out the Canaanites as with abhorrence (see Le 1Ki 18:28; 1 Kings 20:22, and contexts).
(2) Conspicuous amongst these were the Sodomites, whose orgies were intimately connected with the Asherim, and to encourage which the women wove hangings (see 2 Kings 23:7). How fruitful in inventions is the wickedness of the heart! (Ecclesiastes 7:29.)
II. FOR HIS DEGENERACY HE WAS WITHOUT EXCUSE.
1. He had Jerusalem for his capital.
(1) This was the city chosen of God out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name there. The temple of Jehovah was there, and the Shekinah of Jehovah was in it.
(2) Every appliance for acceptable worship was there at hand. The altars were there; the priesthood was there; the appointed assemblies, festival and ferial, were there.
(3) They sinned, therefore, "before the face of the Lord," as in His very presence. Even more so than Israel, who could not now claim Jerusalem for his capital, though he was still bound to go there to worship. Let us remember that God is ever near us; this thought will restrain our truancy.
2. He had a son of David for his king.
(1) The mother of Rehoboam, indeed, was an Ammonitess. This is emphatically (twice) mentioned. She was one of those strange women who had turned the heart of Solomon from the right way. The abomination of her country was Milcom or Molech, whose rites were most ferocious and demoralizing.
(2) But against these influences were noble traditions on the other side. His father, in the beginning of his reign, was illustrious in wisdom and zeal for the God of Israel. The memories of his grandfather were glorious. To this must be added the most material circumstance that the Covenant was with his house; for Messiah Himself was to be the Son of David.
(3) These things were not without their influence. For three years after the revolution under Jeroboam, Rehoboam governed Judah in the fear of God, and so established his throne (see 2 Chronicles 11:17).
(4) When, after this, Rehoboam "forsook the law of the Lord," his subjects should have dissuaded him and, if necessary, resisted him. But they went "with him" (2 Chronicles 12:2).
(5) To such excesses,did they go that they "sinned above their fathers in provoking the Lord to jealousy."—J.A.M.
The Entailments of Sin.
During the three first years of his reign in Judah, Rehoboam walked in the steps of Solomon and David, enjoyed peace, and became established in his throne. Afterwards he gave himself up to idolatrous abominations, and brought evil upon himself and upon his people. The entailments of their sin were—
I. TROUBLE.
1. There was continual war between the kingdoms.
(1) While they remained faithful to God they had peace. God interposed to preserve peace by the hand of Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:21-11).
(2) But when they forsook the Lord, they soon got to strife, which continued as long as the kings lived (verse 80). This strife was also handed down to their successors,
(3) Thus sinners become God's instruments to punish one another. So it is seen to this day in the contentions and litigations of individuals. Men are slow to see the hand of God.
2. Shishak aggravated the mischief.
(1) The influences which brought him upon the scene may be discerned. Hadad, who occasioned so much trouble to Solomon, was Shishak's brother-in-law. Shishak was thus disposed to give asylum to Jeroboam when he fled for his life from Solomon. Shishak now conspires with Jeroboam to ruin Rehoboam.
(2) The array brought against Judah by Shishak was formidable (see 2 Chronicles 12:3). It would have been crushing had not Rehoboam and his people, in their extremity, humbled themselves before God (2 Chronicles 12:7).
(3) But they still had to feel the smart of their sins.
II. FORFEITURE.
1. In war there is always loss.
(1) Necessarily there is the forfeiture of peace. Who can estimate the value of peace? Perfect peace is the resultant of perfect harmony as the white light is composed of all the colours in the iris.
(2) There is the loss of property. Labour is the source of wealth: the labour withdrawn from industry to wage war is so much loss of wealth. The soldier also is a consumer. When he does not provide for his own sustenance, the labour of others must be taxed to feed him.
(3) There is the loss of life. War is seldom bloodless. Often the slaughter is fearful. Wellington is reported to have said that the calamity next in severity to a defeat is a victory.
2. Shishak despoiled the temple of its treasure.
(1) The booty here was enormous. The spoils of David's victories were there; also the accumulations of Solomon's peaceful commerce.
(2) The shields of gold that Solomon had made are particularly mentioned. It is added that Rehoboam had brazen shields made to replace them. How sin reduces the fine gold to brass!
3. Shishak also rifled the palace.
(1) The treasures here also were immense. Perhaps there never was such plunder as this in human annals.
(2) Rehoboam handed down a diminished inheritance to his son. By his folly he alienated ten tribes of his nation from his kingdom. Abijam likewise succeeded to a kingdom greatly impoverished. He became heir also to embroilments. The entailments of sin pursue the spirit into the invisible world. Forfeiture. Trouble:—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Unfaithfulness and its rebuke.
I. JUDAH'S SIN.
1. The nature of the transgression. The grossest idolatry was set side by side with the pure worship of God. The temple and its services were still HIS (1 Kings 14:28), but on every high hill and under every green tree were the images and altars of the false gods.
The preservation of the pure worship of God is no proof that all is yielded which God demands. The heart may be full of the world's idolatries, of its covetousness and lust and manifold sin.
2. Its enormity.
(1) It was wrought in Jerusalem, "the city which the Lord did choose," etc; and this, too, in the face of the defection of the ten tribes. It is high treason against Jehovah when those whom He has called and honoured are faithless to the trust committed to them. It is the darkest crime against God and man to betray the last earthly refuge of the truth.
(2) It was done after an interval of repentance and religious zeal (2 Chronicles 11:17; 2 Chronicles 12:1). They had known and yet forsaken the better way.
(3) Their idolatry was more unrestrained and daring than any that Israel had ever known (1 Kings 14:22).
3. Its fruits (1 Kings 14:24). Errors in worship become vices in life. The soul that is cut off from the fountain of life must needs break out into corruption.
II. JUDAH'S CHASTISEMENT. It inflicted deep humiliation and loudly proclaimed God's indignation.
1. It was inflicted by an old and beaten foe. Their temple songs, celebrating the ancient triumph over "Rahab," must have deepened their shame.
2. The holy city and the temple itself were spoiled. God loathed their holy things. We need not marvel that rationalism and infidelity are rampant in a faithless, worldly Church. It is God's way. Israel's idolatry is punished by Egypt's triumph.
3. It left its mark in enduring poverty (1 Kings 14:26-11). The splendour passed away from the royal pomp, and doubtless also from the temple service. The nation and Church which Egypt has spoiled, whose faith has been shaken by doubt, or swallowed up in unbelief, have lost their strength and glory. They are but the shadows of what a true and pure faith once made them.—J.U.