EXPOSITION
This division of chapters, immediately after the commencement of the narrative of the reign of Baasha, is somewhat unfortunate, inasmuch as it obscures the close connexion between the sin of Baasha and the prophecy which it provoked. The idea the historian would convey is clearly this—the analogy between the dynasty of Jeroboam and that which supplanted it,
(1) in their sin,
(2) in the denunciation of each by a prophet, and
(3) in the punishments which followed their sins
an analogy so close that the prophet Jehu almost employs the ipsissima verba of his predecessor, Ahijah.
Then the word of the Lord came to Jehu, the son of Hanani [Hanani is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:7-14 as having admonished Asa, and as having been thrown into prison for so doing. Both he and his son would seem to have belonged to the kingdom of Judah. We find the latter in 2 Chronicles 19:2 a resident in Jerusalem, and protesting against the alliance between Jehoshaphat, whose historian he became, and whom, consequently, he must have survived (2 Chronicles 20:34), and Ahab. He is mentioned in the verse last cited as "made to ascend on the book of the kings of Israel" His prophetic career must have extended over at least half a century] against Baasha, saying,
Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust [cf. 1 Kings 14:7; 2 Samuel 7:8; Psalms 78:70. These words assuredly point to a lowly origin. He may well have risen from the ranks], and made thee prince [The original word is used of leaders of various degrees, comprehending even the king: 1 Kings 1:35; 1Sa 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1; cf. Daniel 9:25] over my people Israel [There is no approval implied here of the means by which Baasha had raised himself to the throne. All that is said is that he had been an instrument in God's hands, and owed his throne to God's sanction and ordering. Even his conspiracy and cruelties had been overruled to the furtherance of the Divine purpose], and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger [better vex, one word] with their sins;
Behold, I will take away [Heb. exterminate; same word as in 1 Kings 14:10 (where see note); 1 Kings 21:21; 1 Kings 22:47, etc.] the posterity of [Heb. after] Baasha, and the posterity of [after] his house, and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. [Cf. 1Ki 15:29; 1 Kings 21:22, etc.]
Him that dieth of [Heb. to; see note on 1 Kings 14:11] Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat. [It may be these words, like those of the next two verses, were almost a formula, but if so, it is noticeable that precisely the same formula was used of Jeroboam a few years before, and Baasha knew well how it had been accomplished. "All the prophets in succession have the same message from God for the same sins" (Wordsworth).]
Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might [as to which see 1 Kings 15:17-11. He could hardly have given a stronger proof of his might than by fortifying a post but five miles distant from Jerusalem. Keil, however, would interpret the word, both here and in 1 Kings 15:23, of his energy and strength in government. Better Bähr, tapfere Thaten. Ewald hence infers that Baasha was "a man of distinguished bravery"], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tizrzah [cf. 1 Kings 15:21, 1 Kings 15:33. This place is twice mentioned as his residence], and Elah his son reigned in his stead. [It is perhaps more than a mere coincidence that this uncommon name, Elah ("terebinth," see note on 1 Kings 13:14), is also the name of the great valley (1Sa 17:2, 1 Samuel 17:19; 1 Samuel 21:9) near to Gibbethon, where Baasha was proclaimed king.]
And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu, the son of Hanani, came the word of the Lord against Baasha [This does not refer, as some have thought, to a second prophecy on Jehu's part, but is rather explicative of 1 Kings 16:2. Rawlinson thinks the object of the historian herein was to point out that Baasha was punished for the "murder of Jeroboam [?] and his family," as well as for the calf worship. Keil and Bähr hold that it is designed to guard against a perversion of 1 Kings 16:2, "I made thee prince," etc; from which it might be inferred that he was commissioned of God to murder Nadab. But it is simpler to suppose that his primary idea was to convey, by this repetition, which no doubt is derived from a different source from the statement of 1 Kings 16:2, that Baasha was visited by God for his various sins. It was no chance that happened to him. The excision of his house, like that of Jeroboam, was distinctly foretold], and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord, in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands [1 Kings 16:2; note the coincidence with 1 Kings 15:30, in connexion with the next words. Bähr explains "the works of his hands "as idols, Dii factitii, after Deuteronomy 4:28, but this appears somewhat far fetched], in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him [i.e; Nadab].
The Reign of Elah.
In the twenty and sixth year of Asa, king of Judah, began Elah, son of Baasha, to reign over Israel, two years [cf. 1 Kings 15:1-11. and see note on 1 Kings 15:28].
And his servant [Not only "subject," as Rawlinson, but officer. The same word is used of Jeroboam; 1 Kings 11:26, note. We may almost trace here a lex talionis. Baasha was Nadab's "servant," as Jeroboam was Solomon's] Zimri [From the occurrence of this name among those of the descendants of Jonathan (1 Chronicles 8:36), it has been supposed (Stanley) that this was a last effort of the house of Saul to regain the throne], captain of half his chariots [רֶכֶב as in 1 Kings 9:19; 1 Kings 10:26. The violation of the law of Deuteronomy 17:16 brings its own retribution], conspired against him [precisely as Elah's father had "conspired "(1 Kings 15:27) against Nadab], as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, steward of [Heb. which was over; cf. 1 Kings 4:6; 1 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 2 Kings 18:37] his house in Tirzah. [Several points present themselves for notice here.
(1) the example of Jeroboam has clearly had its full influence on the nation. "The Lord's anointed "is no longer had in reverence, as in the days of David (1 Samuel 24:6, 1 Samuel 24:10; 1Sa 26:9, 1 Samuel 26:16; 2 Samuel 1:14), nor is it accounted a sin to grasp at the crown.
(2) Zimri only does what Baasha had done before him. That prince was "hoist with his own petard."
(3) Elah would seem to have been a dissolute and pusillanimous prince. His place was clearly with his army at Gibbethon (2 Kings 18:15; cf. Joshua 8:1-6.Joshua 8:12. Joshua 8:4). And as clearly it was not in the house of one of his subjects, even the intendant of his palace. "An Oriental monarch … is precluded by etiquette from accepting the hospitality of his subjects"—Rawlinson, who further remarks that the low tastes which we here find Elah indulging" had probably been formed before his father was exalted out of the dust." As probably they were inherited direct from his father. Anyhow, they led to his destruction. It is clear that Elah's want of character, like Nadab's, suggested the conspiracy of Zimri.
(4) It is extremely probable, though not absolutely certain, as Bähr affirms, that Arza was one of the conspirators, and that the wretched prince had been decoyed to his house and made drunk, with a view to his murder there.]
And Zimri went in [cf. Judges 3:20; 2 Samuel 4:7] and smote him and killed him in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead. [Cf. 1 Kings 15:28 and 2Ki 15:1-38 :93. It is curious how it happened three times in the history of Israel that "the only powerful prince in a new dynasty was its founder, and after his son and successor reigned two years, the power passed into other hands" (Ewald).]
The Reign of Zimri.
And it came to pass when he began to reign, as soon as he sate on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha [see note on 1 Kings 15:29. The LXX. Vat. omits the rest of this verse and the first clause of 1 Kings 15:12]: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall [i.e; not a boy. See 1 Kings 14:10 note], neither of [Heb. and] his kinsfolks [The גֹּאֵל is strictly the person to whom
(1) the right of redemption (Leviticus 25:26; Ruth, passim) and
(2) the duty of avenging blood (Numbers 35:19) belonged.
And this being the next of kin (Ruth 2:12, Ruth 2:13), the word came to mean near relative, kinsman, as here; cf. Ruth 2:20. All the same, it discloses to us Zimri's object, which was to destroy the avenger of blood. And it shows (in connexion with Ruth 2:16) that none of Baasha's children, if he had other children, had gone to the war], nor of his friends. [Zimri went a step farther than Baasha had gone. He was not content with extirpating the royal family, but put to death the partizans of the house, all who would be likely to sympathize with Elah or to resent his murder.]
Thus did Zimri destroy an the house of Baasha, according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baasha, by [Heb. in the hand of] Jehu the prophet [Verses 1, 7; cf. 1 Kings 15:29. The analogy is now complete],
For [אֶל corresponds with the עַל of 1 Kings 16:7 = propter; cf. 1 Kings 14:5; 1 Kings 21:22] all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin, in provoking the Lord God of Israel to anger [the formula of 1 Kings 15:30, etc.] with their vanities. [The calves, not idols, are referred to here. Cf. Deuteronomy 32:21; 1 Corinthians 8:4. The same idea is embodied in the word Bethaven; Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:8.]
Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign [The same word elsewhere translated in A.V. began to reign. It is really an aorist = succeeded to the throne] seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped [Heb. encamping] against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Phistines. [It has at first sight a suspicious look that two kings of Israel, within an interval of about twenty-five years, should have been slain by conspirators during a siege of this place. But when the narrative is examined, its probability and consistency become at once apparent. Stanley assumes that the siege lasted over the whole of this period, but it is more likely that when Baasha found himself king, he discovered that he had domestic matters enough upon his hands, without a foreign war, and so he raised the siege. It is very probable that he feared opposition such as Zimri and Omri subsequently experienced. And his wars with Asa and with Syria may well have prevented his renewing the undertaking. On the accession of Elah, however, with the usual ambition and impetuosity of youth, it was decided to recommence the siege and to win this city back for Israel. But the fate of Nadab, and the consequent ill omen attaching to the place would not be forgotten, and this, as well as his voluptuous habits, may have deterred the fainéant Elah from besieging it in person, while the conspiracy which marked the former siege may at the same time have suggested to Zimri and others the thought of conspiring against Elah.]
And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel [obviously, all the army. Cf. 1 Kings 12:1, 1 Kings 12:16, 1 Kings 12:18] made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. It was hardly likely they would submit to the usurpation of Zimri. Not only had he occupied a subordinate position, but his murder of all Elah's friends must have made him a host of enemies in the camp. It was the natural thing for them, therefore, to turn to Omri. He had the advantage of being in possession. The captain of the host stood next to the king (2Ki 4:13; 2 Samuel 5:8; 2 Samuel 19:13; 2 Samuel 20:23), and twice stepped into his place (2 Kings 9:5). This history has many parallels in that of the Roman empire.]
And Omri went up from Gibbethon ["The expression, 'went up,' accurately marks the ascent of the army from the Shephelah, where Gibbethon was situated, to the hill country of Israel, on the edge of which Tirzah stood" (Rawlinson)], and all Israel [see on 1 Kings 16:16] with him, and they besieged Tirzah. [It is probable that they arrived before the city on the sixth or seventh day after the assassination of Elah. This period would just allow sufficient time for the news of the conspiracy to travel to Gibbethon and for the march of the army.]
And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken [the meaning is probably that which Josephus gives: "When he saw that the city had none to defend it," or possibly, "when he saw that a breach was made"], that he went into the palace [אַרְמוֹן citadel, fortress, from אָרַם altus fuit. So Gesen; Keil, Bight, al. The palace, no doubt, consisted of a string of buildings (1 Kings 7:2-11) of which this was the highest and strongest part. Ewald thinks that the harem—a word which has almost the same radicals―or women's apartment, is meant—the most secluded portion of the great palace (Josephus understands it to mean "the inmost part"), and hence infers, as also from 2 Kings 9:31, that the women of the palace had willingly submitted to the effeminate murderer of their lord, and that even the queen-mother had made advances towards him. But, as Bight remarks there is nothing of this in the text, and Zimri's desperate act rather shows daring and contempt of death than effeminacy or sensuality. And 2 Kings 15:25 (cf. Psalms 122:7) seems to point to a stronghold rather than a seraglio] of the king's house, and burnt the king's house [probably the palace which Jereboam had built. Ewald thinks it was this structure gave Tirzah its reputation for beauty; Song of Solomon 6:4] over him with fire [According to the Syriac, the besiegers set fire to the palace. Similarly Jarchi. But the text is decisive. The parallel deed of Sardanapalus will occur to all readers. Rawlinson also refers to Herod. 1:176, and 7:107], and died. [This word is intimately connected with the verse following. But there is no need to rearrange the verses. The text, as it stands, conveys clearly enough that Zimri's tragical death was a retribution for his sins. Bähr remarks that of Elah and Zimri we learn nothing, apart from the fact that they held to the sin of Jeroboam, except how they died.]
For his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the Lord, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin. [It is quite clear that in his reign of one week Zimri cannot have done much to show his complicity in the schism of Jeroboam, and it is probable that the sacred writer means that his character and antecedents were such as to prove that all his sympathies were with the irreligious party. Bähr thinks that he had "formerly displayed much partiality for the calf worship." But it is quite as likely that the idea in the historian's mind was that all these events were the bitter fruits of Jeroboam's misguided and impious policy, into the spirit of which, Zimri, like his predecessors, had been baptized. It is interesting to remember here the aspect these repeated revolutions and assassinations would wear to the kingdom of Judah, then enjoying quietness and prosperity under Asa. We cannot doubt for a moment that they were regarded as so many manifestations of the righteous judgment of God, and as the outcomes of that spirit of insubordination and impiety which, in their eyes, had brought about both the division of the kingdom and the schism in the church.]
Now the rest of the acts of Zimri [We see here the tendency of the historian to express himself in formulae. He checks himself, however, and does not add "and all that he did," etc.], and his treason that he wrought [Heb. his conspiracy which he conspired. Though this was all there was to tell of him, yet no doubt it would be recorded at greater length by the historians of the day. We can hardly suppose that the "books of the words of the days" would dismiss so striking an event in a few sentences], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
The Interregnum.
Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: halt of the people followed [lit; was after. Same expression 2 Samuel 2:10; cf. 1 Kings 1:7] Tibni the son of Ginath [Who he was, or why he was set up in opposition to Omri, it is impossible to say. It has been supposed that the army was divided in its preferences, and that part of the soldiery wished to make Tibni king, and this is perhaps the most probable conjecture. It is to be considered that the entire army was not encamped before Gibbethon. Nor are 1 Kings 1:16, 1 Kings 1:17 fatal to this view, as Bähr maintains, because "all Israel" there clearly means all the army under the command of Omri. It is hardly likely that Tibni was set up by the people of Tirzah, after the death of Zimri, to continue the struggle. The only thing that is certain is that,the hereditary principle being overthrown, the crown appeared to be the legitimate prize of the strongest; and Tibni, who may have occupied a position of importance, or have had, somehow, a considerable following, resolved that Omri should not wear it without a fierce contest], to make him king [Omri had been already made king, i.e; anointed, 1 Kings 1:16]; and half renewed Omri.
But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath [It appears, however, from the following verse that the struggle lasted four years]: so Tibni died [According to Jos; Ant. 8.12. § 5, he was slain by the conqueror. The LXX. has here a curious and probably genuine addition. "And Thabni died, and Joram his brother at that time], and Omri reigned. [The jingle of the Hebrew words is probably designed.]
The Reign of Omri.
In the thirty and first year of Asa, king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years [As Omri was proclaimed king in the twenty-seventh and died in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (cf. 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:29), he cannot in any case have reigned twelve full years; whereas if his reign is to be dated, as it is here, from the thirty-first year of Asa, it is obvious that he would only have reigned seven, or, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, eight years. Rawlinson proposes to get over the difficulty by rearranging the text. He would attach the first clause of this verse to 1 Kings 16:22, and read, "And Omri reigned in the thirty-first," etc. But to this there are two serious objections. First, that 1 Kings 16:23, as it now stands, only follows the usual formula with which a new reign is announced (cf. 1 Kings 16:8, 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:29); and, second, it is extremely doubtful whether any prose sentence in the Hebrew ever begins as 1 Kings 16:23 would then do, "Reigned Omri over Israel twelve years." Such a sentence would certainly be quite alien to the usus loquendi of our author. We are therefore reduced to the conclusion either
(1) that the text here, as in some other instances (1 Kings 6:1; 2 Kings 1:17; cf. 2Ki 3:1; 2 Kings 13:1, 2 Kings 13:10, etc.), has suffered at the hands of a reviser, or
(2) that the numbers have been corrupted in transcription; or
(3) that the historian expresses himself in a somewhat confused way.
Of these suppositions perhaps
(1) is the most likely. Anyhow, it is clear that the twelve years of Omri's reign are to be counted not from the thirty-first, but from the twenty-seventh year of Asa, i.e; from the date of Zimri's death (see 1Ki 16:10, 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:29). The confusion has arisen from the fact that it was not until Tibni was slain, after four years of conflict, that Omri became sole ruler]: six years reigned he in Tirzah.
And he bought [i.e; after the six years just mentioned. During the four years of anarchy Omri would seem to have retained possession of the capital which he had taken (1 Kings 16:18) on Zimri's death. But the palace being burnt and the defences perhaps weakened by the siege, he determined, rather than rebuild it, to found a capital elsewhere] the hill Samaria [Heb. Shomeron, called by Herod Sebaste, whence its modern name Sebustieh. In his selection of Samaria for the seat of government, Omri acted with singular judgment. It has been said that "Shechem is the natural capital of Palestine," and no doubt it enjoys a commanding position and great advantages, but Samaria has even superior recommendations. It is a site with which no traveller can fail to be deeply impressed. Even Van de Velde, who says, "I do not agree with Dr. Robinson and other writers who follow him that the mountain of Samaria presents so admirable a combination of strength, fertility, and beauty, that the like is hardly to be found in Palestine", nevertheless readily allows its superiority to Tirzah, and remarks on the strength of its position. "Many travellers have expressed a conviction that the spot was in most respects much preferable to the site of Jerusalem" (Kitto). It is a large oval or oblong mound, with a level surface, adapted for buildings, with steep sides to make its position impregnable, and surrounded by an amphitheatre of hills. "Samaria is in a position of great strength; and must before the invention of gunpowder have been almost impregnable. It stands some 400 feet above the valley, the sides of the hill being steep and terraced in every direction for cultivation, or perhaps for defensive purposes.. broad and open valleys stretch north and south, and the hill is thus almost isolated," Conder, p. 47, who adds, "Strategical reasons may be supposed to have dictated the choice of the capital of Omri, for on the north the hill commands the main road to Jezreel over a steep pass, on the west it dominates the road to the coast, and on the east that to the Jordan". Grove speaks of "the singular beauty of the spot," and Stanley justly sees in the selection of this spot a proof of Omri's sagacity. But perhaps the best proof is that which the subsequent history supplies. Shechem and Tirzah had each been tried, and each in turn had been abandoned. But Samaria continued to be the capital so long as the kingdom lasted] of Shemer for two talents of silver [variously estimated at £500 and £800. This purchase, obviously of the freehold, i.e; in perpetuity, was in contravention of the law of Leviticus 25:23. David had bought the threshing floor of Ornan, but that was
(1) from a Jebusite, and
(2) for a high religious purpose (2 Samuel 24:24).
It has been suggested that this purchase may have inspired Ahab with the idea of buying the vineyard of Naboth], and built on [Heb. built] the hill and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. [It is not improbable that the vendor bargained that the land should retain his name (cf. Psalms 49:11). The reluctance of the Israelite to part with his patrimony, even to the king, is brought out very strikingly in ch. 21. Shemer, in selling his choice parcel of land for a capital, might well wish to connect his name with it. The fact that שֹׁמְרוֹן means watch mountain (Gesen.), and that we should have expected a name formed from Shemer to take the form Shimron—Shomeron would strictly imply an original Shomer—is not by any means a proof that our historian is at fault in his derivation. For, in the first place, the names Shomer and Shemer are used of the same person in 1 Chronicles 7:32, 1 Chronicles 7:34. And secondly, nothing would be more in accordance with Jewish ideas than that Omri, in naming the hill after its owner, should give a turn to the word which would also express at the same time its characteristic feature. A pun, or play upon word, was the form which wit assumed amongst the Semitic races, and the form Shomeron would at once perpetuate the memory of Shemer, and express the hope and purpose of Omri. It is a curious fact that the later Samaritans did play upon this very word, representing themselves as guardians (שֹּׁמְרִים) of the law (Ewald). The Greek form of the name, Σαμάρεια, would seem to have been derived through the Chaldee שִׁמְרָיִן as found in Ezra 4:10, Ezra 4:17.]
But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord, and did worse than all that were before him. [It has been thought that Micah 6:16 ("the statutes of Omri, etc.") points to a fresh departure from the Jewish faith; to the organization of the calf worship into a regular formal system, or to "measures for more competely isolating the people of Israel from the services of the house of the Lord at Jerusalem" (Kitto).
For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger with their vanities.
Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he showed [Not only in the war with Tibni, but certainly in the subjugation of the Moabites, of which mention is made in the recently discovered Moabite stone. He may well have had other wars, which, like this, have escaped notice in Scripture. If the king of Syria spoke truly (1 Kings 20:34), the war with that power had been extremely disastrous. Yet the Assyrian inscriptions prove that Omri's name was more widely and permanently known in the East than those of his predecessors or successors. Samaria, for example, down to the time of Tiglath-Pileser, appears as Beth Khumri, the "house of Omri;" Athaliah,the daughter of Ahab, is called a daughter of Omri; and Jehu appears in the Black Obelisk Inscription as "the son of Omri". It is perhaps an evidence of "his might" that his dynasty retained the throne to the third generation], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? [1 Kings 16:26, 1 Kings 16:27 are an exact repetition, mutatis mutandis, of 1 Kings 13:14; cf. 15:80.]
So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria [After the example of earlier kings, he found a grave in his capital city; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 14:31; 1 Kings 16:16]: and Ahab his son reigned In his stead.
HOMILETICS
The Punishment of Jeroboam's Sin.
We have already considered the true character of Jeroboam's sin It now remains for us to observe, first, the punishment which it provoked, and secondly, its workings in later generations. And its punishment was so great and so varied that it will of itself occupy the rest of this homily.
But let us remember, in the first place, that there were two parties to this sin. Jeroboam sinned himself and also "made Israel to sin." King and people alike were involved in the schism. If the one suggested it, the other embraced it. Originating with the former, it was approved and perpetuated by the latter. There were two parties, consequently, to the punishment. That was impartially shared between sovereign and subjects. We have to consider, therefore—
I. THE RETRIBUTION WHICH BEFELL THE ROYAL HOUSE.
II. THE RETRIBUTION WHICH OVERTOOK THE PEOPLE AT LARGE.
I. And in considering the pain and loss in which this sin involved those who sate upon the throne of Israel, we must discriminate between Jeroboam and his successors. Jeroboam was the prime, but not the only offender. If he was the author, subsequent kings were continuators of the schism. And as he had his punishment, so they had theirs. Let us therefore take account first of the sorrows and sufferings of the heresiarch, Jeroboam. Amongst these were the following:
1. The foreknowledge that his kingdom would be overthrown. This dismal foreboding must have clouded all his reign, for it dated from the day of that first sacrifice at Bethel. Then he learnt that a child of David's house should cover his schemes and memory with disgrace. He knew that the dynasty he had founded should not endure, and moreover that he was the author of its ruin, and he knew that others knew it too. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." What shall we say of the crowned head disquieted by such forebodings as these?
2. The foretaste of the destruction of his family. As he had learnt from the man of God of the triumph of his rival and the dishonour of his priesthood, so he learnt from Ahijah of the excision of his family. This ambitious prince knew that his posterity would be swept away like dung, would be devoured like carrion. And he was assured of this, not only by prophetic word and by signs following, but he had an earnest thereof in the death of his firstborn. He knew that that was but "the beginning of the end." It was a sharp pang, but it was the lightest part of his punishment (1 Kings 14:13).
3. Remorse and vexation. He could not fail to compare the two messages of Ahijah (1 Kings 11:31-11; 1 Kings 14:7-11). The first gave him dominion over ten tribes. The second left him neither subject nor survivor. God had promised to "build him a sure house." God now threatens him and his with annihilation. And why this change? He knew why it was. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." It was because of the calves (1 Kings 14:9). How he must have repented that piece of folly and faithlessness: how he must have cursed his infatuation—the more inexcusable, as he had the example of Solomon before him. It is possible that this remorse was so poignant that it shortened his days; that it was thus "the Lord struck him, and he died" (2 Chronicles 13:20).
4. The shameful murder of his family. We can readily believe that a parvenu like Jeroboam, a servant who had raised himself to the throne, would have been content to suffer for the rest of his days, if thereby he could have averted the dishonour of his name and the destruction of his posterity—of all evils the greatest in the eyes of a Jew. But no; he foresaw that butchery awaited his nearest and dearest, and he had not slept long in his grave before the knife of Baasha was at his children's throats. And this murder of his posterity, though after the manner of Eastern despotisms, would seem to have been marked by circumstances of peculiar cruelty (1 Kings 16:7). It was so truculent that it brought down vengeance on the instrument. Our history gives no details, but it is easy to picture the divans dripping with blood, the corridors choked with the corpses of Jeroboam's wife and children. The annals of Turkey and other Eastern kingdoms would supply many illustrations of this deed.
5. His own untimely end. For he died by the visitation of God—by a stroke of some kind or other. He may have perished like Antiochus Epiphanes, like Sylla, like Herod, like Philip of Spain. Or, like our Henry the First, he may have never smiled again after his son's death, but steadily drooped to his grave. Somehow his life was cut short. "The wicked shall be silent in darkness."
Such, then, was the fourfold penalty which Jeroboam paid for his sin. Let us now consider the punishment which befell his successors, who "walked in his way" and "departed not" from his heresy. We may trace it—
1. In the shortness of their reigns. Nadab, Elah, Ahaziah, all reigned two years. Zimri one week. None of the kings of Israel reigned like David and Solomon, or like Asa and other kings of Judah. In the 250 years that the kingdom of Israel lasted, nineteen kings occupied the throne, as against eleven kings of Judah. Asa saw seven kings in turn rise and fall during his reign; Uzziah saw six; and we have but to remember that long life was one of the principal sanctions of the Mosaic dispensation to be assured that these brief reigns were a manifestation of the righteous judgment of God.
2. In the revolution and assassination which often closed them. In these 250 years the dynasty was changed no less than seven times, and we know what a change of dynasty meant, in that and a later age. It was one of its traditions that "the man was a fool who when he slew the father spared the children." Six times this tragedy of Tirzah was repeated. Once an unhappy prince, to escape the butchery awaiting him, devoted himself and his household to the flames. Once seventy ghastly heads, in two heaps at the city gate, witnessed to the work of extermination.
II. But now let us note the share of the people in this dispensation of suffering. What befell the priests who ministered at Dan and Bethel—what the worshippers who resorted thither? They or their children suffered these six penalties at least.
1. Misgovernment. Of the kings of Israel there was not one who did not "do evil" in the sight of the Lord. By which we are not only to understand that he worshipped the calves; oppression, exactions, intolerable cruelties may be comprehended under the words. The case of Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-11.) was probably not the only one of its kind. We may be sure, too, that when Elah was drinking himself drunk, injustice was being practised in his name. Incapacity—on the part of the king—may have been the cause of some insurrections, but oppression is a much more .probable reason. We know what Rome was like when the purple fell to military adventurers. Probably Israel fared no better at the hands of its Baashas, Omris, and Menahems. What suffering a change of dynasty involved on the people we may gather from 2 Kings 15:16. An Eastern kingdom at the best was a despotism, at the worst a devildom.
2. Civil war. The four years' struggle between Omri and Tibni and their respective partisans, which was a war to the death (1 Kings 16:22), entailed no less miseries on the country than civil war always does. Lands ravaged, homesteads fired, women violated—these were some of its incidents. It has been said that no one can give any adequate description of a battle. What shall be said of a battle lasting over four years? for in a country not so large as Yorkshire civil strife would mean unceasing conflict.
3. Invasion.
(1) By Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:4),
(2) by Shishak,
(3) by Syria,
(4) by Assyria.
Shishak was primarily appointed to chastise Judah, Syria was the lash of Israel. Observe that in the invasion of 2 Kings 13:4, 2 Kings 13:19, Bethel was captured by the men of Judah, whilst in that of 2 Kings 15:20, Dan—Jeroboam's other shrine—was among the first to suffer. The priests of Dan and the inhabitants of the surrounding territory, the worshippers at its temple, bore the brunt of Benhadad's invasion. But the bands of Syria were always invading the land (ch. 20; 2 Kings 6:1-12.) And many a "little maid" (2 Kings 5:2) was carried off to dishonour.
"Many a childing mother then
And newborn baby died."
What a picture of the horrors of war have we in 2 Kings 8:12. Yet such horrors must have been of common occurrence in Israel. And they culminated in the sack of Samaria and the captivity of the nation.
4. Loss of territory. Israel was "cut short" (2Ki 10:1-36 :82). In 2 Kings 1:1 (cf. 1 Kings 3:5) Moab rebels. Syria, its great adversary, was once an appanage of Israel. Now Israel is made a dependency of Assyria (2 Kings 15:19, 2 Kings 15:20).
5. Famine. It was the Lord called for this (2 Kings 8:1). It was one of His "sore judgments" (Ezekiel 14:13, Ezekiel 14:21). And it would seem to have been almost chronic in Israel (cf. 1 Kings 17:1, 1 Kings 17:12; 1Ki 18:2; 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 6:25 sqq.; 7.; 2 Kings 8:1). And the terrible straits to which the people were reduced thereby may be inferred from 2 Kings 6:25, 2 Kings 6:29; cf. Deuteronomy 28:56, Deuteronomy 28:57.
6. Captivity. For the carrying away beyond Babylon into the cities of the Modes was part of the reckoning for Jeroboam's sin, and for the allied sin of idolatry (1 Kings 14:15; 2 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 17:23). The "carrying into captivity"—these are familiar words on our lips. But which of us can form any conception of the untold, unspeakable miseries which they cover? The gangs of prisoners tramping to Siberia give us but a faint idea. "Hermann and Dorothea" is a tale of modern times, and the flight it pictures conveys no just impression of the horrors of a wholesale transportation. When the land was swept as with a drag net (cf. 2 Kings 21:13, and compare Herod. 3:149, 2 Kings 6:31, where the manner in which the Persians carried away the population of some of the Greek islands is described), and the entire population marched in gangs across the burning plains, under brutal and lustful overseers—men in comparison with whom a "Legree" would be mildness itself—we may imagine some of the horrors of that journey, Nor did those sufferings end in the land of their captivity. Before the people was absorbed amongst the neighbouring nations, and so effaced from the page of later history, we may be pretty sure they paid a constant tribute of suffering for their sin. Vae victis, this was the unvarying law of ancient warfare, and the exiles of Assyria proved it in their own persons. Two hundred and fifty years after the schism, the seed sown by Jeroboam was still reaped in cruelty and agony and blood.
The Working of Jeroboam's Sin.
The punishment which Jeroboam's sin brought down upon himself, his successors, and his people, was not its worst part. Its influences upon others, the lessons of disobedience and defiance taught by that malign example, were even more disastrous. Let us now trace, as far as we can, its workings; let us see how the leaven of the calves leavened the whole lump.
1. He begat a son in his own likeness. "The evil that men do lives after them"—it lives in their children; it is inwrought into their constitution. As a rule, the child reproduces the character of the parent, the moral traits, quite as closely as the physical. There are exceptions—Abijah was one—but they help to prove the rule. He was the only exception in the house of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:8). Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis, and the converse is equally true. Nabab, and the other children of that house, not only practised the lessons they had learned in Jeroboam's school, but they reproduced in their own persons the self will, the impatience of control, and the other faults and vices of their father. What wonder if "Nadab did evil in the sight of the Lord"? he only "walked," as the next words remind us, "in the way of his father" (1 Kings 15:26).
2. He begat a spirit of lawlessness and insubordination among his people. There are not a few indications of demoralization and corruption in Israel, corresponding with the depravation of religion. The very revolutions, which followed one afar another, are in themselves a proof of this. The chronic disaffection and the periodical upheavings of society in the northern kingdom, especially when contrasted with the quietness and security of Judah, can only be accounted for by the influences of the court. North and south were of one blood, and lived under one sky. It was because the former had been taught disobedience and disregard of constituted authority, it was because the sense of reverence and duty had been weakened by the action of Jeroboam, that it became like a reed shaken in the water—so often rebelled against its sovereigns. Jeroboam had accustomed them to play fast and loose with the commandments of Heaven; what wonder if they made small account of their obligations to their earthly king?
3. He taught Baasha, Zimri, and Omri to lift up their hands against the king. Just as David's religious veneration for the person of the "Lord's anointed" tended to make his throne and that of his successors the more secure, so did Jeroboam's rebellion (1 Kings 11:26) afford an example of aggression to later ages. His subjects were not likely to believe in the "divinity that doth hedge a king." Why should they scruple to grasp at the crown if it came within their reach? Why was Nadab more sacred than Rehoboam? Why should the son of Baasha, again, have more respect than the son of Solomon?
4. He taught his subjects, indirectly, to hold life cheap. There had been two changes of dynasty before Baasha had learned from him to attack the king and to exterminate his family, but both of these had been, so far as the royal family was concerned, bloodless. David never thought of slaying the children of Saul. His inquiry was, "Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him?" (2 Samuel 9:3.) And when "Israel rebelled against the house of David," they never contemplated a massacre of Solomon's harem, or even of insolent Rehoboam. But observe the change in succeeding revolutions. "He left not to Jeroboam any that breathed" (1 Kings 15:29; cf. 1 Kings 16:11; 2 Kings 10:11). Why this thirst of blood? It is because Jeroboam has returned from Egypt, and his godless proceedings have depraved public morality, and the restraints of law have been enfeebled, and men have grown more reckless and desperate (1 Kings 16:18, 1 Kings 16:24). It is clear to the most cursory reader that a daring impiety characterizes the whole period from Jeroboam to Hoshea, and for this "the sin of Jeroboam" is mainly responsible. That was the "first step" which makes the rest of the road easy.
5. He entailed his sin upon his successors. Of each of the kings of Israel do we read that he "walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did," and we wonder, perhaps, how it was that not one of these nineteen kings, sprung as many of them were from different lineages, had the courage and the piety to retrace his steps, and revert to the primitive faith and mode of worship. But a little reflection will show that this, under the circumstances, was well nigh an impossibility. For Jeroboam had made the calf worship an integral part of the national life. It was so intertwined with the existence of Israel as a separate people, that to abandon it would be to repudiate all the traditions of the kingdom, and tacitly to acknowledge the superiority of Judah. Any king attempting such a reformation would appear to be a traitor to his country. The attempt would have provoked a second schism. No, it was clear to each monarch at his accession, if he reflected on the subject at all, that the calf worship must go on. The damnosa hereditas which he had received he must transmit. There was no place for repentance.
6. He paved the way for idolatry. Already, in 1 Kings 14:15, we find the "groves" following directly upon the calves, the images of Asherah upon the images of Jehovah. Ahab and Jezebel are not wholly responsible for the abominations of Baal and Ashtaroth. It was the daring innovations of Jeroboam had prepared the minds of men for this last and greatest violation of the law. "Man does not become base all at once." The plunge into wholesale idolatry would have been impossible, had not the deep descent to the calf worship been traversed first. Pecati poena peccatum. That, too, begets children in its own likeness. Those who despised the "tabernacle of witness" in the wilderness were given up to take up "the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Remphan" (Acts 7:42, Acts 7:43). If men will not have God in their thoughts, He gives them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).
7. We see his hand in the building of Jericho. It was Hiel, a Bethelite, braved the curse and rebuilt the walls and reared the gates of the city of palm trees. Here we see the influence of a prior violation of law. Whether he acted in ignorance of law, or defiance of law, it is to Jeroboam's sin the deed owed its perpetration. The law might well be forgotten which had been so completely ignored. And the subject had been encouraged to violate it by his sovereign.
8. We hear his voice in the curses of the children of Bethel. Where but at Bethel would children have dared thus to revile a prophet of the Lord? The children only reflected the impiety and hatred of their parents. And from whom had these latter learned their hatred but from the king, who "made an house of high places" there, and inaugurated the schismatic worship with his own hands? From the day when a man of God laid the city under an interdict, the prophets of Jehovah must have been unpopular at Bethel, and as the time passed by, and the breach was widened, passive dislike ripened into open scorn and hatred, and a new prophet, of whose powers they had had no experience, could not pass by without insult and defiance.
The Jews have a saying, that in all the scourgings, plagues, and chastisements which they have endured, there is not one but has in it an ounce of the dust of the golden calf which Aaron made. The saying holds equally good of the calves which Jeroboam made. There is not one of the troubles which befell both the crown and the kingdom, not one of the bitter sufferings which the ten tribes endured, but had its starting-point in the sin of Jeroboam.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
The Seed of Evil doers.
The subject before us furnishes illustration of the following propositions, viz.:
I. WICKED ARE THE SEED OF THE WICKED.
1. There is a sense in which this is generally true.
(1) Jeroboam "made Israel to sin." Nadab "did evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin whereby he made Israel to sin."
(2) Baasha murdered Nadab and usurped his throne. Then he exterminated the whole house of Jeroboam. In this he fulfilled the words of Ahijah the Shilonite. Yet was it not out of zeal for God, but to serve his own selfish ambition. So under the same evil promptings he continued in the sin of Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:34). And his son after him walked in his steps.
(3) Do we not still find that those who loyally serve God are children or grandchildren of godly persons? "The seed of the righteous is blessed."
(4) This is the rule, but not without its exceptions; else missions to the heathen, abroad and at home, would be hopeless, which, thank God, they are not.
2. There is a sense in which this is universally true.
(1) "Seed" is not always reckoned according to the flesh. "The children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Romans 9:8; see also the reasoning, Romans 9:13-45).
(2) Thus God can, out of the very stones, raise up children to Abraham. Gentile believers in Christ are such (see Matthew 3:9; Galatians 3:26, Galatians 3:29).
(3) In this sense all are not Israel who are of Israel. Descendants of Abraham who follow not his true faith and good works are not his seed (see John 8:37, John 8:40; Romans 2:28; Romans 9:7; Galatians 6:15).
(4) As the good, whether sprung from evil or good ancestors, are the seed of God; so are the wicked, whether sprung from evil or good ancestors, the seed of the devil (see Genesis 3:15; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). So are the wicked, without exception, the seed of the wicked.
II. THE TRIUMPHING OF THE WICKED IS SHORT.
1. How brief was the reign of these kings!
(1) "The days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years" (1 Kings 14:20). But this was little more than half the term of Asa's reign (1 Kings 16:10).
(2) Nadab "reigned over Israel two years." This was really but a portion of two years, for, according to the usage of Scripture, a year entered is reckoned as if completed. He "began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa," and "in the third year of Asa" did Baasha slay him (1 Kings 16:25, 1 Kings 16:28).
(3) Baasha reigned "twenty and four years," still little more than half the time of Asa's reign. This son of David sat upon the throne of Judah long enough to see eight kings upon the throne of Israel, viz; Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab. In these he witnessed no less than five dynasties!
2. How little happiness had they in their rule!
(1) Sin brings the vexation of an evil conscience, with its attendant disquiet, suspicion, and fear.
(2) Also the vexation of an angry Providence. They that take the sword take the blade with the haft. The wars of these ever changing dynasties left little room for repose.
(3) How difficult for men to learn that worldly ambition and vexation are sisters; that abiding happiness is found only in the ways of God!
III. THE END OF THE WICKED IS DESTRUCTION.
1. This is written in history.
(1) It is recorded in the history of these kings. Jeroboam in person died upon his bed, but in his family his light was extinguished in blood. Baasha in like manner died on his bed, but in his family he too perished by the sword.
(2) These examples are but samples of history at large—sacred, secular.
2. It is also written in prophecy.
(1) We meet with it in the alternatives to the conditions of salvation.
(2) This destruction follows the spirit into the invisible world, and is a "much sorer punishment" than that which terminates in natural death.
(3) The judgments upon the wicked recorded in history are but figures of the more terrible doom threatened in prophecy.—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
God's threatenings find at last a complete fulfilment.
I. THE LAST STEP IN A CAREER OF REBELLION AND FOLLY. Nadab might have been warned. His way to the throne was opened up by God's judgment in the removal of Abijah. He must have heard of the Divine threatenings; he might have seen the evil results of his father's sin. But in the face of all these things he adopted the sinful policy of his father.
1. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord." His heart and life were estranged from God and righteousness. This is the explanation of all that follows. Contempt of the claims of revelation, and rebellion against God are but the revelation to men of a heart and life which have already grieved and provoked God.
2. He continued in a path already dark with the frown of God: "and walked in the way of his father." The son who continues in his father's sin may incur thereby a deeper guilt than his. The iniquity of it may not have been at first so fully manifested. It might have been considered and abandoned in the shadow of the father's death. As the ages roll on sins manifest themselves, and the nation which will not turn from them seals itself for destruction. Are there sins with us the evil of which we know today as we did not know before? Then the guilt of their retention is greater than that of their first commission.
3. He resolutely pursued a path which meant destruction, not .for himself only, but for an entire people: "and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin." It was nothing less than an attempt to rob God of His chosen people, and them of Him, in order that the house of Jeroboam might reign in safety. The terrible selfishness and the murderous heart of sin!
II. THE JUDGMENT.
1. He was smitten in the midst of his army. The host of his warriors could not save him. There is no place where God's hand cannot reach us.
2. He was slain, not by the Philistines, but by one of his own servants. Treachery and rebellion were visited with fitting punishment. The strict justice of the Divine vengeance. His judgments are repayments: "I will repay."
3. The Divine threatening literally fulfilled (1 Kings 16:29). God's words against sin are not lightly spoken. The end is hid from us, but His eye is resting, while He speaks, upon the woe.—J.U.
Ch. 15:33-16:7
Unrighteous Zeal.
I. SMITERS OF THE SINFUL ARE NOT NECESSARILY RIGHTEOUS (1 Kings 15:33, 44).
1. Baasha's crime. Behind the slaughter of his master and his master's house lay the threatening of God. The Divine decree seemed to legalize the crime. But God's command did not come to him, nor was he moved by righteous indignation against the sins of the house of Jeroboam. He served his own passions, and it was sin to him before God, "because he killed him." The iniquity of those who rush in to smite wrong and hypocritically veil their hatred and spite and greed under the plea of zeal for God and righteousness (Romans 2:1).
2. His evil life. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord." State reforms are impossible for men whose own heart refuses God's yoke. Our work can never rise higher than the level of our life. There is also a spiritual law of gravitation: the streams of our influence can only flow downward.
3. His hurtful reign. He "walked in the way of Jeroboam," etc. He may have condemned Jeroboam's sin in regard to the calves, etc.; but when begirt with the same state exigencies he continued the course he himself had punished with death. It is easy to condemn the sins of others. God has nobler work for us: it is, when surrounded by their temptations to triumph over them, and to serve not by words only but by deeds.
II. GOD'S MESSAGE TO BAASHA (1 Kings 16:1-11).
1. His exaltation was of God. "I exalted thee out of the dust." The throne was not secured by his wickedness. The Lord had stilled opposition and given him success.
2. It was great and unlooked for. His tribe had no claim to the throne, and his own place among his people was a mean one. But God had, step by step, advanced him, and was now enabling him to reign in peace. The Lord's help is not withheld from those who do not know and do not serve Him. "Despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" (Romans 2:4.)
3. The return made to God. He had changed nothing. Israel was still being led down the path of darkness and judgment, "to provoke Me to anger with their sins." Every higher interest was sacrificed to the policy of keeping the ten tribes separated from the other two. Statesmen out of office condemn that which, when in office, they are afraid to change. And how many are there who are neglecting the trusts God has committed to them. Once they said, "If we had only place or wealth, etc; God would be served and men blessed." These have been given and what has been done? Has the vow been performed?
4. Baasha's punishment worse than Jeroboam's. "I will take away the posterity of Baasha and the posterity of his house" (see 1 Kings 16:11, "Neither of his kindred nor of his friends"). The Divine justice is shown in the differing penalties of sin.—J.U.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Jehu's Prophecy.
Jehu was a prophet and the son of a prophet. Of his father Hanani we read in 2 Chronicles 16:7-14, where it is recorded to his honour that he suffered imprisonment for the fidelity of his testimony against Asa. This son was worthy of such a father. His testimony before Baasha, a man of desperate resolution and unscrupulous irreligion, was admirably courageous. We hear of him again after an interval of forty years (see 2 Chronicles 19:2; 2Ch 20:1-37 :84). In his prophecy here
I. HE RECITES THE CRIMES OF BAASHA. These were—
1. That he "walked in the way of Jeroboam." This implies
(1) that he was influenced by a like ambition. An ambition to be great in the eyes of men—to be a king. (See 1 Kings 11:37.)
(2) That to compass this he resorted to unscrupulous measures. He rebelled against his king. He rebelled against his God.
2. That he made the people of the Lord to sin.
(1) To make any people, or person, to sin is a great crime. And who can sin only to himself? Directly or indirectly sin must exert an influence beyond.
(2) To make God's covenanted people to sin is a higher crime. The oath upon them is violated. The salt of the earth, too, loses its savour, and the world is left to putrefy.
(3) To make God's people to sin, not as by accident, but of set purpose, is the highest crime. This Baasha did in upholding Jeroboam's calves—the "work" of men's "hands" (2 Chronicles 16:7). He did this fearing, as Jeroboam had feared, that if the people went to Jerusalem to worship they might repent of their rebellion against the house of David. For the same reason Baasha opposed the reformation under Asa, and to this end set about the building of Ramah (see 2 Chronicles 16:1).
3. That he thereby provoked the anger of the Lord against them.
(1) This expressed itself in the incessant wars by which they were shaken "as a reed is shaken in the water" (1 Kings 14:15).
(2) This is laid at He door of Baasha. His house is implicated with him. Jehu, therefore, had a message also to his house (2 Chronicles 16:7).
4. And because he killed Jeroboam.
(1) This, however, he did not, in person. Jeroboam died on his bed (1 Kings 14:20).
(2) But, in his house, he slew him (1 Kings 15:27-11). A man lives in his posterity; when his posterity are destroyed or exterminated, he is extinct.
(3) Perhaps the words "because he killed him" might be fairly rendered "because he killed it," viz; the house of Jeroboam. This any. how is the meaning (see 1 Kings 15:27, 1 Kings 15:29). The notion that he killed Jehu is inconsistent with the records of history, which bring Jehu upon the scene again in the days of Jehoshaphat.
II. HE UTTERS THE JUDGMENTS OF THE LORD.
1. The posterity of Baasha was to be taken away.
(1) His own. He was to have no male representative.
(2) That of his house. His female as well as male issue was to be destroyed. He was to be utterly rooted out.
2. History repeats itself.
(1) It does this because crime must provoke appropriate punishment. God recognizes the lex talionis—eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
(2) The house of Baasha being like to that of Jeroboam, the doom is.similar. As Baasha executed the judgment of the Lord upon the house of Jeroboam, another aspirant to royalty is to execute the judgment of the Lord upon the house of Baasha. Note
3. There are posthumous punishments.
(1) Baasha was as great a criminal as any of his house, yet he came to his grave in peace and honour. He died on his bed and was buried in state. Must there not be future reckoning and retribution?
(2) Baasha is punished in the extermination of his house. But this judgment came upon him after his decease. How could that affect Aim unless there be a future state?
(3) The same inference follows from the judgment upon the bodies of his posterity after their decease. What matter would it be to him or them to have their bodies eaten by dogs or by vultures when the life was gone, unless the spirits survived?
(4) How such things react Upon the disembodied spirit is a mystery. "There are many things in heaven and earth that do not enter into our philosophy."—J.A.M.
The House of Baasha.
The character of Baasha is drawn in the paragraphs immediately preceding, which also contain an account of his end, which was better than he deserved, and suggests the reality of a future retribution. His family so fully followed in his steps that we have no mention of an Abijah amongst them, "in whom was found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel" (see 1 Kings 14:18). The judgment of God upon this wicked house is written in the words before us. We have to reflect upon—
I. THE DEPRAVITY OF THE HOUSE OF BAASHA.
1. The prophecy of Jehu came to them as a warning.
(1) Such is the nature of this class of prophecies. The threatenings of God, like His promises, are conditional. So, had they repented, the judgments denounced would have been removed or moderated.
(2) Of this principle the Scriptures furnish many illustrations. Take, e.g; the argument of Abraham's prayer for Sodom and its success (Genesis 18:23-1). See the effect of. the contrition of Ahab (1 Kings 21:27-11). How the judgment of the Lord upon Nineveh was averted through their humiliation before God (Jonah 3:4.).
(3) This prophecy, therefore, came in mercy, as a respite, to give space for repentance. Else judgment might have fallen without remonstrance, as it did in the issue. By timely repentance and reformation let us seek to avert all threatened judgments.
2. But here was no repentance.
(1) Elah walked in the steps of his father. He followed the sin of Jeroboam. Their idolatries are called "vanities." The gods they worshipped could neither profit nor help them. "Happy is that people whose God is the Lord." Miserable, those whose gods are vanities!
(2) Moreover Elah abandoned himself to sensuality. See him in Tirzah, a palace beautifully situated (Song of Solomon 6:4), where he might have found innocent and rational enjoyment. But there he is in the apartments of Arza, his major domo, drunk! What a condition for a king!
(3) What a condition for a nation, to be ruled by such a king! The Ephrathites had reason to repent of their revolution. They did not improve upon the house of David. Revolutionists have generally found their dreams of a political Paradise illusory.
(4) The wisdom of Christians would be to make the best of the political system they may inherit, and pray for the speedy coming of the kingdom of Christ. This was the spirit of Paul's exhortations, even when such a monster as Nero ruled the kingdoms of the world (see Romans 13:1; 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2; Titus 3:1; also 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 2:17).
II. THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE JUDGMENTS OF GOD.
1. The wicked follow their own devices.
(1) Zimri had an ambition to reign. Such an ambition is not uncommon. Few can ascend the throne of a kingdom. But there are tyrants on the magisterial bench, in the factory, in the shop, in the mansion, in the college.
(2) Zimri had also a desperate resolution to bend circumstances to his object. His rank as a cavalry officer, commanding half the chariots of Elah, gave him access to the palace. There, finding his lord helplessly drunk, he sacrificed gratitude and duty, and struck the fatal blow. What a warning to drunkards! Death is especially terrible when it surprises the sinner in his sin (see Luke 21:34).
(3) With infernal promptitude Zimri proceeded to slaughter the whole of the seed royal. In the massacre he involved also the "kinsfolk and friends," so as to leave no rival to contest the throne.
(4) But how little did he dream, after wading through this sea of blood, that his reign should be limited to a single week! How disproportionate was the end to the means! If men could duly estimate the end, how it would lead them to hesitate over the employment of the means!
2. But the providence of God is over all.
(1) God foresaw everything. This is evident in the word of prophecy. And He so controlled the actors that the results answered the ends of justice. This also is evident in the same word.
(2) But this did not excuse the wickedness of the executioners. God allows the wicked to punish each other for Him. So makes He the wrath of man to praise Him (see 2 Kings 9:31).
(3) He has better work for His saints. To bless is more congenial to them than to destroy. The ambition of the spiritual is too noble to be satisfied with an earthly crown, or to pay its price.—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
A Divine judgment and its instrument.
I. THE JUDGMENT.
1. It was delayed in God's long suffering. Baasha had reigned nearly twenty-four years; Elah nearly two. The Lord is swift to bless but slow to strike. He has no delight in a sinner's death. Do we remember that God's long suffering today is not forgetfulness or indifference, but the restraining of infinite love?
2. It came upon him in his sin. The army was in the field, but he was not there. He was deaf to the calls of duty and honour. He had lost his self respect; he "was drinking himself drunk in the house" of his chamberlain. And now in a moment pleasure was swallowed up in terror, the misused life in death. The suddenness of God's judgments: "at such an hour as ye think not," etc.
3. Its extent. It was not less than was predicted. His kindred and his friends were cut off and their offspring (1 Kings 16:11). Every word was fulfilled. God's threatenings are not exaggerations meant to frighten us away from sin; they are descriptions. God's eye is resting on the woe which is hid from us, and His words are those of perfect truth and tenderest love.
II. THE INSTRUMENT.
1. Zimri was his servant. He had trusted and advanced him. Again we notice how ingratitude and rebellion against God are repaid in kind. If there be no love and truth toward God in us, let us not be surprised if we find these wanting in others toward us.
2. Though his deed fulfilled God's word, it was not of God: "he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the Lord;" it was "treason that he wrought." That which punishes evil may itself be sin. God's shield was withdrawn from around the house of Baasha, and an ambitious, cruel heart was allowed to work its will upon them. It is no justification of our act that the nation or persons against whom it is clone were wicked and deserved their fate; the question remains, Were we righteous in inflicting it?
3. The scourge was soon broken and cast away. He reigned but seven days. In slaying the king he was but ending his own life; in entering the palace gained by blood, he was laying himself upon his funeral pyre. The cup we covet may be a cup of death. Take God's way, and bide God's time: He will give that which is good.—J.U.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
The Kingdom of Men.
Though "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men," yet is He not responsible for the principles by which such kingdoms are actuated. For these are in shaking contrast to those which shall obtain in the "kingdom of God." In the kingdom of men as represented in the specimen before us we encounter—
I. FOLLY.
1. True religion is pure wisdom.
(1) It is the "wisdom of God" revealed—outwardly, in His word—inwardly, by being written by His Spirit in the heart.
(2) To encourage this is man's highest wisdom. Godliness has promise of this life—of that to come.
2. False religion is supreme folly.
(1) It is in some respects even worse than no religion. It is more than a negation in respect to truth; it is pertinacious antagonism to truth.
(2) It is folly in relation to the highest interests of man. It demoralizes in the proportion of its ascendancy. It forfeits the heaven it professes to seek. It aggravates the hell it professes to avoid.
(3) It expresses itself in vanity. What more vain than the idols of the heathen? The very forms of those idols evince the monstrosity of folly. Witness a monkey or an onion for a God; a fish with a man's head; a satyr; a griffin! (see Deuteronomy 32:21; Isaiah 41:29.)
3. Of such folly was the kingdom of Israel flagrantly guilty.
(1) The calves with which they so deeply sinned were introduced by the kingcraft of Jeroboam.
(2) They are maintained by the kingcraft of all his successors, of whatever dynasty. Even Zimri, who only reigned seven days, and in those days was occupied in exterminating the house of Baasha, yet found time to pronounce himself in their favour.
(3) What a substitute for the Lord God of Israel who brought them up out of the land of Egypt!
II. RESTLESSNESS.
1. Witnessed in frequent dynastic changes.
(1) The house of Jeroboam lasted twenty-four years. This gave place to that of Baasha, which lasted twenty-six. Zimri wore the crown seven days. Then came a four years' struggle for it between Omri and Tibni. At length "Tibni died and Omri reigned."
2. These changes represented strong passions.
(1) There was the impatience of the rule of the house of David which resulted in the revolution in favour of Jeroboam. Yet so little did they benefit by the change, that when Baasha destroyed that house they accepted, without a murmur, the rule of the regicide.
(2) But when Zimri treated the house of Baasha as Baasha had treated that of Jeroboam, they did not accept the second regicide. They now evinced some sense of right and wrong; but it was a wayward sense. There was no inquiry after the will of God. The army set up Omri, their general; but the civilians, apparently, chose Tibni. Here was a confusion which lasted until the death of one competitor.
3. These commotions were sanguinary.
(1) The division of the nation into two kingdoms induced civil war.
(2) Civil war also attended the treason of Zimri. For the army was occupied with the siege of Gibbethon when the news of this treason reached them, which determined them to raise the siege and invest Tirzah instead. The capture of Tirzah was not unbloody. A desperate character like Zimri would not tamely yield, when, rather than fall into the hands of Omri, he burnt the palace over his head and perished in the flames.
(3) The competition for the crown between Omri and Tibni protracted the civil war four years. Omri is not said to have resigned until the "thirty-first year of Asa, whereas Zimri's treason occurred in the twenty-seventh year of Asa," upon which Omri was chosen by the army. (Compare 1 Kings 16:15 and 1 Kings 16:23.) The difference here is about four years.
III. CRIME.
1. Foremost under this head is idolatry.
(1) We mentioned this under the head of "folly," but it is not thereby removed from the category of "crime." Idolatry is the grossest and most direct insult to the living God.
(2) Hence no crime is in Scripture more heavily denounced and more signally obnoxious to punishment.
2. Next comes the capital crime of murder.
(1) As idolatry is the highest affront to God, so is murder the greatest offence against man.
(2) The crown of Israel was deeply stained with the blood of murder—with that of the house of Jeroboam; with that of the house of Baasha.
(3) Suicide also disgraced these violent times. And the note is significant that in his suicide Zimri perished "for his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the Lord, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did to make Israel to sin" (1 Kings 16:18, 1 Kings 16:19). Note: Men with their own hands may punish their sin.
What a contrast is the kingdom of God! Its principles are peace, righteousness, and joy. Of this those have the earnest who in heart accept Jesus as their Melchisedec.—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Change without improvement.
I. OMRI'S INDEBTEDNESS TO DIVINE GOODNESS.
1. His success against Zimri (1 Kings 16:15-11). The traitor fell before him almost without a struggle.
2. Against Tibni. Israel was equally divided, yet his life was preserved and the kingdom given to him. Men pass up to place and means and influence through a pathway which, if it is only looked back upon and considered, is full of power to touch the heart and bow it under the will of God. I) o we read the story of our past, and let it touch us with the tale of God's marvellous mercy?
II. HIS SIN.
1. His hardness of heart. Not only was he blind to God's mercy. He passed up unawed through the midst of the terriblest judgments and the most marked fulfilment of God's threatenings. Neither the goodness nor the severity of God was allowed to touch him.
2. He "did worse than all that were before him." He was a man of energy and worldly wisdom. Both were bent to strengthen his power. He went further than Jeroboam, who seduced Israel, for he seems to have compelled them (see the mention of Omri's statutes, Micah 6:16) to sacrifice before the calves. Great talents, if joined to a selfish, hardened heart, only carry men further away from God.
III. HIS SIN'S FRUIT (1 Kings 16:29-11).
1. In his son's character and reign.
(1) "He did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him."
(2) It was possible only to an Ahab to set Jezebel—the great enemy of God and His people—upon the throne of Israel
(3) It was not enough to worship the calves of Bethel and Daniel He must turn wholly away from the God of Israel and worship Baal.
2. In the people's contempt of Jehovah. Hiel's act was done in the face of Israel, yet it was not forbidden; its commission awakened no fear. The man was left childless, yet judgments so harrowing and fulfilments of prophecy so marked had no effect upon his own soul. The legislation that blots out God's ordinances delivers a people over to darkness and judgment.—J.U.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Omri's Reign.
After a four years' contest with Tibni, the son of Ginath, for the crown of Israel, the followers of Omri prevailed over the adherents of his rival. The issue, then, was that "Tibni died and Omri reigned." Whether Tibni died in battle, or whether, when his followers were overcome, he was taken and put to death, is not written; but the record illustrates how in the revolutions of the wheel of fortune the fall of one makes way for the rise of another. Let us now view this new monarch—
I. IN HIS PALACES.
1. "Six years reigned he in Tirzah."
(1) This was once a lovely palace. Beautiful for its situation like Jerusalem (Song of Solomon 6:4), and beautified during the reign in it of all the earlier kings of Israel. For it was the third and last palace built by Jeroboam, the first of these kings, to which he removed from his palace at Penuel.
(2) But it was now damaged by fire. When Zimri shut himself up in it as his defences were driven in by the forces of Omri in the siege of the city, he set it on fire and perished in the conflagration. Thus in a moment the labour of years was demolished. Destruction is easier than construction. This principle also holds in morals.
(3) Still for six years Omri held his court in this city. Whether he occupied a portion of the palace which escaped the flames, or resided temporarily elsewhere in the city, is not revealed. The omissions of Scripture are instructive. Things of minor importance must not be allowed to divert attention from momentous things.
2. Six years he reigned in Samaria.
(1) The origin of this new capital is here recorded (1 Kings 16:24). Seven hundred pounds of our money seems a small price for a hill considerable enough to be the site for the capital of a kingdom. Perhaps Shemei was animated by public spirit when he disposed of his hill for so trifling a sum. Perhaps he did so to perpetuate his name. His motive is withheld from us. Herein also is instruction. We are not judges of the motives of our fellows. God surveys the motives of all hearts.
(2) Henceforth Samaria figures prominently in the history of Israel. It gives its name to the middle portion of Canaan. Tirzah, Penuel, Shechem, are henceforth little heard off Men give importance to places rather than places to men. The importance even of heaven will be rather that of its inhabitants than of its situation. Learn the paramount value of spiritual qualities,
II. AT THE ALTAR.
1. "He walked in all the ways of Jeroboam."
(1) This means that he encouraged the worship of the calves, if not that he even appeared at the altar as high priest (see 1 Kings 12:33; 1 Kings 13:1).
(2) It means further that he was moved by the same state policy. He desired to keep his people from Jerusalem lest they should repent of their revolution from the house of David.
(3) Note: Satan has his opportunities. While the pride of Israel smarted under the insolence of Rehoboam, Jeroboam could impose his calves upon them. Had he missed that opportunity, it might have been impossible afterwards to have effected his purpose. Omri could not have done it. We should be wise as serpents, viz; in avoiding the snare of the devil, in availing ourselves of our opportunities for good.
2. He "did worse than all that were before him."
(1) He "made Israel to sin" as Jeroboam did, persuading them to halt at Bethel or visit Dan, for that Jerusalem was too far from them. Persuading them also that his calves were images of the true God (see 1 Kings 12:28).
(2) He bound them by statute to worship the calves (compare Micah 6:16). In this he went farther than Baasha, who had set about building Ramah to prevent the people from going to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 16:1).
III. IN HIS EXIT.
1. He "was buried."
(1) He had a state funeral. Money might procure that. He left a son to succeed him on the throne who would pay this public respect to his remains.
(2) How variously is the same subject viewed by men in the flesh, and by the inhabitants of the spiritual world! The funeral of the corpse is the event upon earth; the destiny of the spirit is the event yonder.
2. He "slept with his fathers."
(1) This expression does not mean that he was buried with them in their sepulchre, for Omri was buried in Samaria, a city which had no existence in the days of his fathers. Of Baasha also it is said that he "slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah" (1 Kings 16:6), though there is no evidence that any of his fathers were buried in Tirzah.
(2) It seems to import that he died upon his bed, as the generality of mankind finish their course. This expression does not appear to be used when any die by the hand of violence as a judgment of the Lord upon their sin.
(3) Yet a violent death was deserved by Omri, as it was also by Baasha and Jeroboam, who, like him, came peacefully to the grave. They laid up sin for their posterity (see Job 21:19). But are they thus to escape the punishment of their own iniquity 2 Surely there must be a "judgment to come!"—J.A.M.