THE GOLDEN CALVES
‘He set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan.’
Jeroboam had the courage and capabilities of the ruler, but he lacked confidence in the Providence of God. He gave himself up to finessing in religious matters that wrought his own undoing and his people’s shame. He knew that he owed his position, not only to the suffrages of the people, but to the election of God, and yet he fell into the very sin which had resulted in part of Rehoboam’s kingdom being wrested from him.
I. Jeroboam’s sin.—This blunder is repeated, or rather aggravated, by Jeroboam, for he initiated a new religious cultus, which was the more mischievous because it was a specious representation of the Jehovah worship, while utterly alien to its central principle. Jeroboam could not himself trust to the wisdom of God to devise means whereby the hearts of the people should be kept loyal to their own chosen king. To obviate the necessity of the people going up to Jerusalem as often as occasion required, Jeroboam set up the calves, one in Beth-el, and the other in Dan, saying, ‘Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!’ We see that Jeroboam takes counsel with himself and forgets what he owes to God, and what God could do for him; that in fostering the people’s loyalty to God he would be strengthening their loyalty to his own throne. He suffered the penalty of his folly, as all must who seek to circumvent right by the practices of expediency. He suffered in the direction of his fears, though not as he anticipated. The people never recovered from the evil effects of his example and influence. The idolatry he established laid hold upon their habits of mind and heart, so that its spell could only be broken by the nation becoming utterly disorganised, and carried into captivity. Going up to Dan and Beth-el was the beginning of a march that ended in disruption and bondage. Jeroboam’s expedient branded his name with infamy.
II. As an expedient.—This act of Jeroboam’s was wholly false and impolitic. Our acts have issues of which we little dream. The attainment of our purpose forms but a very small part of the consequences of our conduct. What may seem to us at any given time as an act of simple expediency, may in the long run prove to have been the beginning of irreparable mischief. We have to regard tendency, as well as consider the wants of any special occasion. Acts that we may think (as Jeroboam evidently did) will consolidate our power, may prove but the cause of its decadence and overthrow. We cannot step outside the bounds within which God would have us move without being involved in shame and loss. Whatever we substitute for God will bring about our ruin.
III. As a policy.—This act of Jeroboam’s overreached itself, it went too far. There must be no competition set up between God and expediency. The contest is unequal, and there should be no rivalry. What can the calves at Dan and Beth-el do? If they divert attention from the claims of the true God, they leave the real necessity of life unmet; if they turn the thoughts from the main issues of obligation to God, they render less stable all authority and power; if they satisfy the craving for the simple observances of worship, they cannot release the soul from sin. Business, culture, pleasure, success, these as expedients may serve a healthy purpose, provided they are not brought into competition with God; as a policy entered upon in order to supersede or ignore His claims, they are fatal to well-being. Jeroboam is not the only one who has set up idols.
Illustrations
(1) ‘It would seem as though the idea of the calf may have been taken from the great cherubims of Solomon’s Temple “in which the ox or calf was probably the principal form” (1 Kings 6:23). But back of this lies the thought of the ox, as being the plougher, the worker, the bread-winner for the family. The huge human-headed bulls in the palaces of Nineveh express the same thought. The strength and goodness of God in the provision for our daily life seem to be embodied in the ox. Nevertheless no good came of the injurious policy of Jeroboam, for this thing became a sin. Nothing that does this can help a nation’s prosperity. Money gained to the exchequer by the cultivation and sale of opium or liquor is not in the long run profitable. The first step was now taken in the down-grade. This royal road to worship ended ill, as all such short cuts are apt to do. The teaching of this well-laid scheme, in the light of what happened afterwards, is the folly of substituting policy for principle.’
(2) ‘The promise to Jeroboam was, “ I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house.” The king ought to have carried his difficulty to God, but he did not. He revealed at once a godless heart. When Cobden, pleading in the early stages of his political career for the hungry artisans of his country, dared to say in the House of Commons that he came there supported by an army of prayers, he was received with derisive cheers. We have heard in our own times sneers at what have been called “Sunday-school politics.” Jeroboam belonged to the class which has no faith in religion as a factor in political life. His character was discovered at the first serious difficulty which threatened him as king.’