A FUTILE ENDEAVOUR
‘And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, … to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.’
I. We must not suppose that the sentence which affirms that this great calamity of the rending of the kingdom was from the Lord is an isolated one, or that it can be explained into some general notion that all men’s doings, good or evil, may be attributed to an omnipotent Ruler. In III. The setting up of the calves shows us why the separation of the kingdoms was a thing from the Lord.—It asserted the real dignity of Jerusalem as the place in which it had pleased God to put His name; it asserted the real unity of the nation to be, not in a king, but in the King; it showed that the only basis of any political fellowship of the tribes lay in that name which was revealed to the first father of them.
—Rev. F. D. Maurice.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Learn the duty of submitting to Divine judgments. The Lord forbade Rehoboam to go to war to crush this rebellion, announcing clearly that this rending of the kingdom was a judgment upon sin. When we have done wrong and are suffering, it is our duty, in patience and humility, to accept the penalty, and submit ourselves to the righteous hand of God.’
(2) ‘It is interesting to notice that while the kingdom of David had failed of its best through man’s fault and sin, it was not altogether cast off. The vessel had not come out what the potter first intended it to be—it had been marred on the wheel; but he made it again another vessel, not so fine as the first would have been, but still a good vessel. The kingdom had a second chance. From the seed of David came at length the Messiah. There is encouragement in this for all who miss their first and best chance. They may try again, and their life may yet realise much honour and beauty. When we think of it, most of the worthy lives of good men in the Bible were second chances. They failed, and then God let them try again. David himself, and Peter and Jonah and Paul are illustrations.’
(3) ‘A man succeeding to the throne, in the prime of life, ought to have had clear notions of the policy he meant to pursue, especially as he had been brought up at the court, and in the home, of the wisest king of the age. Instead of this he seemed dazed and helpless, turning hither and thither for advice. Feebleness of character, like that, has serious issues. A well-meaning youth, who adapts himself to the society he happens to fall into, is in moral danger. Gird yourselves early in life to earnest thought and prayerful resolve.’
(4) ‘The house of David had already grown corrupt, having passed its splendid prime, and was now about to suffer the fate of corrupt things, to fall in ruins. It is a natural Divine law. The only eternal things are righteousness and love and the worship of the true God, and the only lasting are those in which the Spirit of God is. The revolution sprang, as always, from the people, who suffer most from the weight of a tyranny. The later government of Solomon had apparently been oppressive. The accumulation of wealth and the growth of luxury in the hands of the king and nobles had their usual consequences in heavy burdens and misery upon the common people. Great possessions and vast riches in a nation are signs neither of health nor of progress.’