1. To Shechem A central place for the northern tribes to meet, and consecrated by many hallowed associations. Compare Gen 12:6; Gen 33:18; Gen 37:12; Deu 11:29; Deu 27:12-13; Jos 8:33; Jos 20:7; Jos 24:1-25.

For all Israel were come to make him king The verb , were come, should here be rendered by the pluperfect had come. It seems that this coming together of the ten tribes was an action preconcerted among themselves. They had their demands all ready, and their plans and purposes fixed for revolt in case the king would not yield to them. The for ( ) introduces the reason of Rehoboam’s going to Shechem. He went thither to receive the oath of allegiance from the representatives of the northern tribes, who had already assembled there ostensibly for the purpose of acknowledging him king.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rehoboam’s Arrogance Alienates Israel ( 1Ki 12:1-16 ).

The elders of Israel came together with a view to anointing Rehoboam as king on condition that he would guarantee them a somewhat easier lifestyle, but he was too arrogant to take advantage of the offer, and instead listened to the advice of younger hotheads like himself. The result was, that under the influence of Jeroboam, Israel asserted its independence and decided to choose its own king for itself.

However, what is of the greatest interest to the writer is not the to-ing and fro-ing between Rehoboam on the one hand and Jeroboam and the elders of Israel on the other, which as far as he is concerned is simply part of the by-play, but on the fact that ‘it was a thing brought about by YHWH, that He might establish His word which YHWH spoke by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat’ (1Ki 12:15). It was that history was moving forward in accordance with the word of YHWH.

Analysis.

a And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king (1Ki 12:1).

b And it came about, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was yet in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came, and spoke to Rehoboam, saying (1Ki 12:2-3).

c “Your father made our yoke grievous. Now therefore you make the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, lighter, and we will serve you” (1Ki 12:4).

d And he said to them, “Depart yet for three days, then come to me again.” And the people departed (1Ki 12:5).

e And king Rehoboam took counsel with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, “What counsel do you give me so as to return answer to this people?” And they spoke to him, saying, “If you will be a servant to this people this day, and will serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants for ever” (1Ki 12:6-7).

f But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and took counsel with the young men who were grown up with him, who stood before him (1Ki 12:8).

e And he said to them, “What counsel do you give, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me, saying, ‘Make the yoke that your father put on us lighter?’ ” And the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him, saying, “Thus shall you say to this people who spoke to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but do you make it lighter to us’, thus shall you speak to them, “My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1Ki 12:9-11).

d So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had bidden saying, “Come to me again the third day” (1Ki 12:12).

c And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and spoke to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1Ki 12:13-14).

b So the king did not listen to the people, for it was something brought about of YHWH, that he might establish his word, which YHWH spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1Ki 12:15).

a And when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying, “What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel. Now see to your own house, David.” So Israel departed to their tents (1Ki 12:16).

Note that in ‘a’ all Israel came to make Rehoboam king in Shechem and in the parallel they rejected him and returned home. In ‘b’ Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt to support the pleas of the men of Israel, and in the parallel the king did not listen because of His plan to make Jeroboam king. In ‘c’ the people demanded that their load might be made lighter, and in the parallel Rehoboam said that he would make it heavier. In ‘d’ Rehoboam called on the people to give him three days in which to make his decision, and in the parallel they returned to him on the third day. In ‘e’ Rehoboam sought the advice of the old men and received their reply, and in the parallel Rehoboam sought the advice of the young men and received their reply. Centrally in ‘f’ Rehoboam turned from the counsel of the old men to receive the counsel of the young men who had grown up with him.

1Ki 12:1

‘ And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.’

As a result of the death of Solomon all Israel gathered at the Israelite sanctuary at Shechem in order to determine who should rule them. They had a sense of independence that was unfortunately unrecognised by Rehoboam. But they also seemingly had no other idea in their minds but to submit to Rehoboam as long as it was on the right terms. That was their intention in gathering at Shechem.

Shechem was the place to which Israel had first gathered under Joshua for the reading of the Law and the renewal of the covenant (Jos 8:30-35), and the place where Joshua had renewed the covenant after the initial stages of the invasion were over and Israel were settled in the land (Jos 24:1-28). It was a recognised place at which YHWH had recorded His Name (suggested by Jos 8:30-31 with Exo 20:24). It was the place where the stone of witness had been set up (Jos 24:26) and it may well be that the regular reading of the covenant required by the Law of Moses took place at Shechem whose two local mountains Ebal and Gerizim, together with the valley that lay between them, formed a natural amphitheatre (see Deu 27:1-26). Its very sacredness gave a sense of solidity and assurance to Israel. Here at Shechem they would surely find YHWH’s will.

This is a reminder to us that while Jerusalem had finally been established as the Central Sanctuary, (even though the existence of the Tabernacle was still within living memory), there were other sanctuaries at which YHWH could be legally worshipped. Later we learn of an altar on Mount Carmel that was declared to be an altar of YHWH usable by Elijah (1Ki 18:30-32). And Elijah mentions other such acknowledged altars of YHWH (1Ki 19:10).

1Ki 12:2-3

‘ And it came about, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was yet in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came, and spoke to Rehoboam, saying,’

But Israel had not forgotten Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who had fought their corner with Solomon, and they recognised that he was just the man to negotiate on their behalf in this situation. So they sent to Egypt where he was a refugee, calling on him to come and be their negotiator and mediator. And once he had arrived he and the elders of Israel went to negotiate with Rehoboam. Jeroboam was seemingly from one of Israel’s leading families (he was a ‘mighty man of valour/wealth/property’), so that his worth and authority was recognised by all.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Kingdom In Crisis And The Collapse Of An Empire ( 1Ki 12:1 to 1Ki 14:31 ).

The death of Solomon, as always with the death of a king who had ruled powerfully for a long time and had been somewhat autocratic, resulted in hopes being raised among the people that things might now be made better for them. Indeed they appear to have been quite satisfied with the thought of Rehoboam being their king, as long as he would meet them halfway, and they actually gathered at Shechem to negotiate with him for that purpose. It was a real opportunity. Had Rehoboam made concessions, and retained the loyalty of Israel, the combined kingdom would have remained a power, and the tributaries watching in expectation might have hesitated about making trouble. But let Israel and Judah once become divided into two nations, and the driving force and the power base would be lost, and men like Hadad in Edom and Rezon in Damascus (1Ki 11:14-25) would soon ensure the collapse of the empire. And ever waiting in the wings for the collapse of the empire was the powerful Shishak of Egypt in a revived Egypt, just waiting for his opportunity to break up the trade monopoly which Solomon had built up.

On the death of Solomon Israel were ready to accept Rehoboam as their king, and they assembled at Shechem, which they clearly saw as the local Sanctuary of the northern tribes when it came to such matters. The very choice of Shechem indicated that they were calling on the king to recognise his obligations under the Law of Moses. Shechem was the place to which Israel had first gathered under Joshua for the reading of the Law and the renewal of the covenant (Jos 8:30-35), in obedience to the command of YHWH through Moses (Deu 11:29-32; Deu 27:1-26), and was the place where Joshua himself had renewed the covenant after the initial stages of the invasion were over and Israel were settled in the land (Jos 24:1-28). It was a recognised place at which YHWH had recorded His Name (suggested by Jos 8:30-31 with Exo 20:24). It was the place where the stone of witness had been set up (Jos 24:26) and it may well be that the regular reading of the covenant required by the Law of Moses took place at Shechem whose two local mountains Ebal and Gerizim, together with the narrow valley that lay between them, formed a natural amphitheatre (see Deu 27:1-26).

Rehoboam should, of course have recognised that the very choice of this site for their gathering emphasised that Israel saw themselves as separate from Judah when it came to crowning a new king, and were calling on him to renew his obedience to the Law of Moses, and to walking in the ways of YHWH, something which Solomon had signally failed to do. Solomon had previously slipped into the joint kingship so easily, because he had done it while David was still alive, and when the kingdom was at peace. It had thus been easy to forget this independent feeling in Israel, and the fact that kingship in Israel had always been by popular acclamation. It had been so for Saul (1Sa 10:24; 1Sa 11:12-13), for David (2Sa 5:1-3) and indeed for Solomon (1Ch 29:22). And we should not forget how delicate had been the situation after Absalom’s rebellion (2Sa 19:9-15; 2Sa 19:41 to 2Sa 20:2). Israel did not see themselves as Judah’s lapdog.

But sadly Rehoboam had been brought up in Solomon’s court, and he had been bred with a sense of arrogance and with the feeling that all Israel and Judah were there to do his bidding. He saw himself as ‘a king like the kings of the nations’. In his view the people were simply there to be whipped into line. And while when he took advice from his father’s older counsellors they gave him good advice as to the need to meet the people half way, he preferred the advice of the younger arrogant aristocrats like himself who assured him that what was needed was to show them who was in charge. So what brought about Rehoboam’s rejection was the arrogance that had become so much a part of Solomon’s lifestyle, and which he had passed on to his son. In contrast, in the case of Jeroboam, his downfall would come about through his turning his back on the covenant and diluting Yahwism, in order, as he saw it, to protect his kingdom. This would result in his destroying the religious heart of Israel, something which would affect all the kings who followed him. Thus both aspects of Solomon’s failures came out in his successors.

Overall Analysis ( 1Ki 12:1 to 1Ki 14:31 ).

a Rehoboam’s Intransigence Alienates Israel (1Ki 12:1-16).

b Rehoboam Is Rejected By Israel And Jeroboam Becomes King of Israel In Accordance With YHWH’s Covenant (1Ki 12:17-24).

c In Disobedience Jeroboam Sets Up The Golden Calves, Appoints Alien Priests And Establishes Alien High Places (1Ki 12:25-32).

d The Alien Altar Is Condemned By A Man Of God (1Ki 12:33 to 1Ki 13:10).

c In Disobedience The Man Of God Eats And Drink In Israel And Is Slain (1Ki 13:11-32).

b Jeroboam’s House Loses The Kingship Because Of The Sins of Jeroboam (1Ki 13:33 to 1Ki 14:20).

a The Unhappy Reign Of Rehoboam Which Is The Consequence Of His Intransigence (1Ki 14:21-31).

Note that in ‘a’ Rehoboam’s reign commenced unhappily and in the parallel it continued unhappily. In ‘b’ Jeroboam received the Kingship through YHWH’s covenant, and in the parallel his house loses the kingship because of his sin. In ‘c’ Jeroboam acts in disobedience against YHWH and in the parallel the man of God acts in disobedience against YHWH. Central in ‘d’ is the condemnation of the alien altar by the man of God.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Ki 12:4 Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.

1Ki 12:4 Comments – We see in 1Ki 12:4 how the northern tribes came to King Rehoboam when he became king and told him of the oppressive hand of his father Solomon, of how he had overburdened them with his extravagant building projects and lifestyle. It is understood from the context that they were glad to see Solomon die.

Imagine ourselves serving a group of people in our society as a calling or vocation and when we die, those very people we served were glad and relieved. We would not consider such a ministry successful, but this was the case with King Solomon’s reign over his people. We know that he has been given the responsibility of building the Temple with all of its splendour. The people of Israel wanted nothing less. But Solomon later indulged in building houses for his wives and in building them a temple for their gods. He built gardens, fortresses and anything his soul delighted in as revealed in the book of Ecclesiastes, but with these God was not so well pleased, for He had not instructed Solomon to do so. Nevertheless, Solomon’s indulgences became a heavy burden to his people and it cost his son the northern kingdom. They had served under David because of his love for God’s people. But they had endured under Solomon and would do so no longer with Rehoboam. Thus, we see that Solomon’s reign was not really successful because of the way he treated his people.

1Ki 12:7  And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.

1Ki 12:7 Comments – 1Ki 12:7 is a perfect illustration of Eph 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Reign of Jeroboam over Northern Israel (930-909 B.C.) In 1Ki 12:1 to 1Ki 14:20 we have the story of Jeroboam ruling over the northern kingdom of Israel. It is important to draw a parallel account of Jeroboam’s reign to that of King David and Solomon. The reigns of both David and Solomon record the judgment of adversaries, the establishment of their thrones, the institution of national worship, God makes a covenant with David and Solomon, the prosperity of their reigns, their sin and judgment, and an epilogue. Jeroboam’s rule follows a similar sequence of events.

1. Jereboam Establishes His Throne 1Ki 12:1-24

2. Jereboam Institutes National Worship 1Ki 12:25-33

3. God Speaks to Jereboam thru a Prophet 1Ki 13:1-32

4. Jereboam’s Sin and Judgment 1Ki 13:33 to 1Ki 14:18

5. Epilogue to Jereboam’s Reign 1Ki 14:19-20

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Rehoboam’s Foolish Answer

v. 1. And Rehoboam went to Shechem, in the northern part of Ephraim’s territory, and even then a center of the northern tribes; for all Israel, the ten tribes outside of Judah and Benjamin, were come to Shechem to make him king, to consider the question of recognizing him as king.

v. 2. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, 1Ki 11:40, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of King Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt,)

v. 3. that they sent and called him. It appears, from 2Ch 10:2, that Jeroboam had returned to hie native country after the news of Solomon’s death reached Egypt, and it was therefore an easy matter to call him. And Jeroboam, who promptly took the lead in the negotiations, and all the congregation of Israel came and spake unto Rehoboam, saying,

v. 4. Thy father made our yoke grievous, namely, the yoke of labor, the burden of servile work, the heavy taxation for the many public buildings and improvements; now, therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father and his heavy yoke which he put upon us lighter, by omitting the customary work by conscription, which, however, they had not found burdensome before, and we will serve thee, acknowledging him as king.

v. 5. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. He wanted time to deliberate, to discuss the situation from every angle. And the people departed, readily granting him the desired time.

v. 6. And King Rehoboam consulted with the old men that stood before Solomon, his father, while he yet lived, the members of his council, or cabinet, who had always been in immediate attendance upon the king, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people?

v. 7. And they spake unto him, saying, giving to the king the advice based upon sound experience, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, for this one day only, and wilt serve them, yielding to their will for the present moment, and answer them, heeding their demand, and speak good words to them, tactful and kind, then they will be thy servants forever, that would be the probable outcome of the negotiations.

v. 8. But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given him, his rash and imperious character refused to accept the proposal, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him and which stood before him, courtiers in attendance upon the king who were anxious to obtain his favor.

v. 9. And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter?

v. 10. And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, noting the trend of his thought and ready to flatter his ambition, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins, that is, As the size of the little finger is to that of the loin, so was the power of Solomon to that of Rehoboam, the latter feeling able to compel the people to do his will and to carry out his ambitious plans.

v. 11. And now, whereas my father did lade you with a heavy load, I will add to your yoke, he would carry out the conscription with greater severity; my father hath chastised you with whips, using only ordinary means to enforce obedience, but I will chastise you with scorpions, with the thorn-whips used for criminals; he would use the most extraordinary and severe means.

v. 12. So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day.

v. 13. And the king answered the people roughly, he gave them a hard and harsh answer, that of a tyrant, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him,

v. 14. and spake to them after the counsel of the young men, the advice which his tyrannical mind had received with such pleasure, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke; my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. The answer was foolish from every point of view and was bound to stimulate rebellious inclinations.

v. 15. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people, gave no heed to their demand for the reduction of their burdens; for the cause was from the Lord, He so shaped events that the foolishness of Rehoboam resulted in his ruin, that He might perform His saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, 1Ki 11:11-31. Whatever is done in the counsel of princes and statesmen, in the history of nations, is done by God’s will or permission, for it is He who rules the universe.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE REVOLT OF THE TEN TRIBES.With the reign of Rehoboam, on which our historian now enters, we begin the second great period in the history of the Hebrew monarchy, so far as it is related in these Books of KINGS. The first, which comprises the Augustan age of Israel, the short-lived maturity of the race in the reign of Solomon, has extended over forty years, from B.C. 1015 to B.C. 975. The second, which is the period of the existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah side by sidethat is to say, from the disruption to the carrying away of Israel into captivityextends over two centuries and a half, viz; from B.C. 975 to B.C. 722, and is, with few exceptions, a period of steady and shameful decline.

And in giving his account of the division of the kingdom, our historian, more suo, confines himself to the recital of actual facts, and hardly speaks of their hidden causes. Yet the sixteenth verse of this chapter reveals to us very clearly one of the secret springs of the dissatisfaction which existed at the date of Rehoboam’s accession, one of the influences which ultimately led to the disruption of Israel. Jealousy on the part of Ephraim of the powerful tribe of Judah had undoubtedly something to do with the revolution of which we now read. The discontent occasioned by Solomon’s levies and the headstrong folly of Rehoboam were the immediate causes, but influences much deeper and of longer standing were also at work. The tribe of Ephraim had clearly never thoroughly acquiesced in the superiority which its rival, the tribe of Judah, by furnishing to the nation its sovereigns, its seat of government, and its sanctuary, had attained. During the two former reigns the envy of Ephraim had been held in check, but it was there, and it only needed an occasion, such as Rehoboam afforded it, to blaze forth. That proud tribe could not forget the glowing words in which both Jacob (Gen 49:22-26, “the strength of my head”) and Moses (Deu 33:13-17) had foretold their future eminence. They remembered, too, that their positionin the very centre of the land was also the richest in all natural advantages. Compared with their picturesque and fertile possessions, the territory of Judah was as a stony wilderness. And for a long time they had enjoyed a certain superiority in the nation. In the time of Joshua we find them fully conscious of their strength and numbers (Jos 17:14), and the leader himself admits their power (verse 17). When the tabernacle was first set up, it was at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim (Jos 18:1), and there the ark remained for more than three hundred years. And the pre-eminence of Ephraim amongst the northern tribes is curiously evidenced by the way in which it twice resented (Jdg 8:1; Jdg 12:1) campaigns undertaken without its sanction and cooperation. It and its sister tribe of Manasseh had furnished, down to the time of David, the leaders and commanders of the peopleJoshua, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, and Samueland when the kingdom was established it was from the allied tribe of Benjamin that the first monarch was selected. “It was natural that, with such an inheritance of glory, Ephraim always chafed under any rival supremacy”. It was natural, too, that for seven years it should refuse allegiance to a prince of the rival house of Judah. Even when, at the end of that time, the elders of Israel recognized David as “king over Israel” (2Sa 5:8), the fires of jealousy, as the revolt of Sheba and the curses of Shimei alike show, were not wholly extinguished. And the transference of the sanctuary, as well as the sceptre, to Judahfor Jerusalem, whilst mainly in the territory of Benjamin, was also on the border of Judahwould occasion fresh heart burnings. It has been supposed by some that Psa 78:1-72, was penned as a warning to Ephraim against rebellion, and to reconcile them to their loss of place and power; that, if so, it was not effectual, and that the jealousy endured at a much later date Isa 11:13 shows. There had probably been an attempt on the part of Jeroboam the Ephraimite to stir up his and the neighbouring tribes against the ascendancy of Judah in the person of Solomon. That first attempt proved abortive. But now that their magnificent king was dead, now that the reins of government were held by his weak and foolish son, the men of Ephraim resolved unless they could wrest from him very great concessions, to brook the rule of Judah no longer and to have a king of their own house.

1Ki 12:1

And Rehoboam [see on 1Ki 11:26, and compare the name . The name possibly indicates Solomon’s ambitious hopes respecting him. The irony of history alone emphasizes it. Ecc 2:18, Ecc 2:19 would seem to show that Solomon himself had misgivings as to his son’s abilities. “As the greatest persons cannot give themselves children, so the wisest cannot give their children wisdom” (Hall). His mother was Naamah, an Ammonitess (1Ki 14:31). It would appear from 1Ki 14:21, and 2Ch 12:13, that he was 41 years of age at his accession. But this is, to say the least, doubtful. For

(1) he is described in 2Ch 13:7 as being “young () and tender hearted.”

(2) The LXX. addition to 1Ki 12:24 says he was sixteen; .

(3) It is hardly probable that Solomon, who was himself “young and tender” at his father’s death, should then have had a son a year old.

(4) Rehoboam’s counsellors, who had “grown up with him,” and were therefore of the same age as himself, are called “lads” (, LXX. ). To these reasons Rawlinson adds a fifth, viz. “that it is hardly likely that David would have permitted his son to marry an Ammonitess, which of course he must have done, if Rehoboam was born in his lifetime. But it should be remembered that David had himself married a foreign princess, Maachah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (1Ch 3:2). There is greater force in the remark that Solomon’s marriages with Ammonite and Moabite women belong apparently to a later period of his life (1Ki 11:1). Altogether the evidence seems to point to a corruption of the text of 1Ki 14:21, etc; and it has been suggested that “forty-one” is there an error of transcription for “twenty-one,” a mistake easily made, if, as is extremely probable, the ancient Hebrews, like the later, used the letters of the alphabet as numerals. Twenty-one would then be ; forty-one ] went to [This journey was probably made soon after a prior coronation at Jerusalem. According to the LXX. addition, it was at least a year after his accession] Shechem [An old gathering place of the northern tribes (Jos 24:1). Its position, in the very centre of Palestine, fitted it for this purpose. But it was perhaps primarily selected because it was the capital of Ephraim, not because it was a “national sanctuary of Israel” (Wordsworth), a title to which it has but little claim. It had once before furnished Ephraim with a king (Jdg 9:2). We learn from Jos 20:7 that it was “in Mount Ephraim;” from Jdg 9:7 that it was under Mount Gerizim. To its position the place was, no doubt, indebted for its name. It is often said to be doubtful whether the place was named after Shechem, the son of Hamor (Gen 33:18), or whether this prince took his name from the place. The latter is, no doubt, the correct view. For Shechem means strictly, not, as it is often translated, the “shoulder,” but dorsi pars superior, or perhaps the space between the shoulder blades (as is proved by Job 31:22, “Let my shoulder fall,” ). Hence the word is found only in the singular. Now any one who has seen the vale of Shechem (Nablus) will hardly doubt that its name is due to its resemblance to this part of the body (compare “Ezion-geber,” 1Ki 9:26). The town lies in a valley between the two ridges of Ebal and Gerizim; cf. Jos; Ant. 4.8. 44. “The feet of these mountains where they rise from the town [to the height of 1000 feet] are not more than 500 yards apart.” It is consequently one of the most striking and beautiful spots in Palestine, and the more so as its perennial supply of water clothes it with perpetual verdure. For its history see Gen 12:6; Gen 33:18; Gen 34:1-31.; Gen 48:22; Deu 27:4-12; Jos 20:7; Jos 21:20; Jos 24:1, Jos 24:25, Jos 24:32; Jdg 9:1-57.; etc. In the New Testament it has been supposed to appear under the form Sychar (Joh 4:5), and this variation has been universally accounted for as a paronomasia, meaning “a lie.” But the recent survey has given us good reasons for identifying the place last named with ‘Askar, a little village on the slope of Ebal, half a mile from Jacob’s well and a little over a mile from Nablus ]: for [This word suggests that Rehoboam had not “selected the capital of Ephraim to be the scene” of his coronation (Rawl.) but that he went thither because the northern tribes claimed this concession. They demanded apparently that he should meet them to receive their homage in the territory of Ephraim. It was a recognition of the importance of the tribe, and there they could the better urge their demands] all Israel [That is, not the twelve tribes (Ewald), but the ten, or their representatives. The name of Israel was already identified with the ten, or rather eleven, tribes (see 2Sa 2:9, 2Sa 2:10, 2Sa 2:17, 2Sa 2:28). It is highly probable that the comparative isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes had led to this result. Indeed, this factthat the term “Israel” was used of the whole nation, exclusive of the tribe of Judahshows in a very significant way the alienation of Judah from the rest] were come to Shoehorn to make him king. [It would certainly seem from these words as if the ten tribes had then no settled idea of revolting. Kimchi sees in the very selection of Shechem a proof that they were only “seeking an opportunity for transferring the government to Jeroboam.” Similarly Keil. But the glories of Solomon’s reign and the traditions of the house of David would surely make them hesitate, even if they had heard of the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (1Ki 11:29), before they wantonly broke away from Rehoboam. And the text says expressly that they had assembled to “make him king,” i.e; to accept him as such, to anoint him (1Ch 12:38 compared with 2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 5:8 shows that is synonymous with , Keil), after the example of Saul (1Sa 2:15), David (2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 5:3), and Solomon (Jdg 1:1-36 :39; 1Ch 29:22). No doubt, as the context shows, they intended to stipulate for an alleviation of burdens, etc; and their selection of Shechem as the place where they would render their allegiance was a “significant hint” (Ewald. “The very place puts Israel in mind of a rebellion,” Bp. Hall) to Rehoboam. Their putting forward Jeroboam as their spokesmanpresuming for the present that the received text of Jdg 9:3 is to be retained, as to which, however, see belowwas a further hint, or rather a plain indication, that they did not mean to be trifled with. It is not a proof, however, as Keil maintains, that they had already determined to make the latter king, for they distinctly said to Rehoboam (Jdg 9:4), “Grant our petition and we will serve thee.” (Ewald, who says “they had the fullest intentions of confirming his power as king if their wishes were granted,” points out how this fact makes against the received text, according to which they had already summoned Jeroboam from Egypt.) It is clear from this and the passages cited above that the Jewish people at this period of their history were accustomed, not indeed to choose their king, but to confirm him in his office by public acclamation.]

1Ki 12:2

And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat [see on 1Ki 11:26], who was yet in Egypt [The usual, and indeed the necessary, interpretation, if we retain our present Hebrew text, is that these words refer, not as the context would lead us to suppose, to the time indicated in 1Ki 11:1, 1Ki 11:3, etc; but to the time of Solomon’s death. But see below], heard of it [The words “of it,” though not in the original, are a fair and legitimate interpretation of its meaning. Whether they are retained or not, the natural and grammatical interpretation is that it was the visit to Shechem, just before mentioned, of which Jeroboam heard. But according to our received text, Jeroboam was one of the deputation which met king Rehoboam at Shechem. It has been found necessary, consequently, to understand the words of the death of Solomon, which has been related in 1Ki 11:43. So the Vulgate, Audita morte ejus. Similarly the LXX. Cod. Vat. inserts the substance of this verse as part of 1Ki 11:43. (The Cod. Alex. follows the Hebrew.) But this interpretation is surely strained and unnatural] (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) [The parallel passage in 2Ch 10:1-19. has here, “And Jeroboam returned from Egypt” ( instead of ). And as some copies of the LXX. have and the Vulgate has “Reversus est de Aegypto,“ Dathe, Bhr, al. would adopt this reading here. It is true it involves but a slight change, and it may simplify the construction. But no change is really required, Bhr’s objection, that in the text, as it stands, we have an unmeaning repetition, “He was still in Egypt and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt,” loses all its force if we understand Jeroboam to have continued his residence in Egypt (as the LXX. says he did) after hearing of Solomon’s death. until summoned by the tribes to be their leader. In any case the repetition accords with Hebrew usage.]

1Ki 12:3

That [Heb. and] they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came [It has been held that this verse is largely an interpolation. The LXX. Cod. Vat. has simply, “And the people spake unto king Rehoboam, saying.” Of more importance, however, is the fact that it is at direct variance with verse 20, which places the appearance of Jeroboam on the scene after the revolt of the tribes. Indeed, these two verses can only be brought into agreement by the questionable device of understanding the “all Israel” of verse 20 very differently from the same expression in verse 1. If, however, we follow in this instance the LXX; which omits the name of Jeroboam both here and in verse 12 (and which thereby implies that he was not one of the deputation to Rehoboam, but, as verse 2 states, was at that time still in Egypt), the difficulty vanishes. Verse 20 then becomes the natural and logical continuation of verses 2, 3. “And Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt. And they sent and called him [to the country.] And when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again [at their summons] they sent and called him unto the congregation,” etc. And in favour of the omission of Jeroboam’s name is the fact that the Hebrew text, both in verse 3 and in verse 12, betrays some little confusion. In verse 3, the Cethib has and in verse 12, whereas the Keri has in both cases. The words look, that is to say, as if a singular nominative had been subsequently introduced], and spake unto Rehoboam, saying.

1Ki 12:4

Thy father made our yoke [see for the literal sense of the word, Num 19:2; Deu 21:3, etc.; for its tropical use, Le Deu 26:13; Deu 28:48, etc.] grievous [Heb. heavy. Was this complaint a just one? It is one which occasions us some surprise, as the reign of Solomon had not only been glorious, but the people had apparently enjoyed the greatest plenty and prosperity (1Ki 4:20, 1Ki 4:25; cf. 1Ki 8:66). Bishop Hall, Bhr, and other writers, consequently, who see in the fact that the ten tribes had chosen Jeroboam for their mouthpiece a settled determination on their part to revolt, affirm that their grievances were purely factitious. But we must not forget that, despite the unbroken peace (see Hall, “Contempl.” 2:136) and general prosperity and affluence, the people had had one burden at least to bear which is always galling and vexatious, the burden of a conscription. It is by no means certain, though it is constantly assumed, and is not in itself improbable, that the taxes and imposts had been heavy, the passages alleged in support of that view (1Ki 10:15, 1Ki 10:25; 1Ki 12:4, LXX.) being quite inconclusive. But while we have no right to speak of the, enormous exactions of the late king” (Stanley), we may be perfectly sure that such an establishment as his (1Ki 4:22, 1Ki 4:26) and such undertakings (1Ki 6:14, 1Ki 6:22; 1Ki 3:1; 1Ki 7:1-51.; 1Ki 9:26, 1Ki 9:17, 1Ki 9:18) would be extremely costly, and that their cost was not altogether defrayed by the presents of subject princes (1Ki 4:21; cf. 1Ki 10:10, 1Ki 10:14), the profits of the king’s merchants (1Ki 10:28), or the imports of the fleet (1Ki 5:1-18 :21). But the people had certainly had to pay a more odious tribute, that of forced labour, of servile work (1Ki 4:6, Hebrews; Heb 5:14; cf. 1Ki 9:21. is almost always used of a tribute rendered by labour, Gesen.) It is quite true that Solomon was not the first to institute this; that David had exacted it before him (2Sa 20:24); that the burden was one with which all subjects of the old-world monarchies, especially in the East, were familiar; and that in this case it had been imposed with peculiar considerateness (1Ki 5:14). But it is none the less certain, when we consider the magnitude of Solomon’s undertakings, and the number of men necessarily employed in executing them, that it must have involved some hardships and created much dissatisfaction; such results are inevitable in all conscriptions. “Forced labour has been amongst the causes leading to insurrection in many ages and countries. It alienated the people of Rome from the last Tarquin; it helped to bring about the French Revolution; and it was for many years one of the principal grievances of the Russian serfs” (Rawlinson). But we may find instances of its working perhaps as more Eastern, more closely illustrative of the text amongst the Fellahin of Egypt. “According to Pliny, 360,000 men had to work 20 years long at one pyramid” (Bhr). In the construction of the great Mahmoudieh canal, by Mehemet All, over 300,000 labourers were employed. They worked under the lash, and such were the fatigues and hardships of their life that many thousands died in the space of a few months (cf; too, Exo 1:11 sqq.; Exo 2:23]: now therefore make thou the grievous [Heb. hard, heavy] service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter [lit; “lighten somewhat from,“ etc.], and we will serve thee. [Their stipulations seem reasonable enough. Bhr, who says, “We cannot admit the complaint of too hard tribute work to be well founded,” and Keil, who maintains that “there cannot have been any well-grounded occasion for complaint,” surely forget that both the aged counsellors (verse 7) and also the writer of this book (verses 13-15) manifest some degree of sympathy with the complainants.]

1Ki 12:5

And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days [so as to afford time for counsel and deliberation. It has been assumed that both the old and young advisers of Rehoboam had been taken by him, as part of his retinue, to Shechem (Bhr). But it is quite as likely that some of them were summoned from Jerusalem to advise him, and that the three days’ delay was in order to give time for their attendance. It is a long day’s journey (12 hours) from Nablus to Jerusalem. Three days, consequently, would just afford sufficient time for the purpose] then come again to me, And the people departed. [The peaceable departure, like the respect-tiff demand, contradicts the idea of a settled purpose to rebel.]

1Ki 12:6

And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men [According to Bhr,” the are not old people, but the elders.” No doubt the word is constantly used, as in the expressions, “elders of Israel,” “elders of the city,” etc. (cf. , senatores (from senex), aldermen=elder men), without any reference to age; but this is not the case here, as the strong contrast with “young men” (1Ki 12:8, 1Ki 12:13, 1Ki 12:14) proves] that stood before [see on 1Ki 1:2] Solomon his father [among them, perhaps, were some of the “princes” of 1Ki 4:2 sqq.] while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people?

1Ki 12:7

And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them [Keil questions the propriety and expediency of this advice. He says, “The king could not become the of the people without prejudicing the authority entrusted to him by God.” But they do not propose that he should become their servant, except for one clay, and then only in the sense of making reasonable concessions. What they mean is this: “If thou wilt brook for once to accede to their terms instead of dictating thine own,” etc. The form of their answer was probably suggested by the temper of the king. They saw what was passing in his mind, viz; that he would fain play the autocrat, and that he resented it exceedingly that his subjects, just as he had begun to taste the sweets of royalty, should presume to parley with him; and they say in effect, “You think that they are reversing your relations, that they are making you, their sovereign, their servant. Be it so. It is but for one day. Then they will be your slaves forever”], and answer them [i.e; favourably; grant their request; cf. Psa 22:22; Psa 65:6], and speak good words to them, then will they be thy servants forever. [“Thy servants,” in opposition to “a servant” above; “forever” in opposition to “this day.”]

1Ki 12:8

But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given [Heb. counselled] him [“We can easily imagine that their proposal was not very agreeable to the rash and imperious young king, in whose veins Ammonite blood flowed” (Bhr) ], and consulted with the young men [see on verse 1. “The very change argues weakness.. Green wood is ever shrinking” (Hall)] that were grown up with him [possibly his companions in the harem], and which stood before him [i.e; as his courtiers and counsellors (of. verse 6). The old men were the counsellors of Solomon; the young men alone are spoken of as the ministers of Rehoboam.

1Ki 12:9

And he said unto them, What counsel give ye [emphatic in the original] that we [it is noticeable how Rehoboam identifies these young men with himself. He employs a different expression when addressing the old men (1Ki 12:6). The A.V. perhaps gives its force by the translation, “that I may answer,” etc.; lit; “to answer”] may answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter?

1Ki 12:10

And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people [There is a certain amount of contemptuousness in the expression (cf. St. Joh 7:49) ] that spake unto thee [The repetition, “speak, spake,” is probably not undesigned. It suggests the idea of retaliation, or that it was a piece of presumption on their part to have spoken at all], saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us [lit; from upon us]; thus shalt thou say unto them [This iteration is expressive of determination and resentment. We may read between the lines, “I would make short work with them, and teach them a lesson they will not forget”], My little finger [“Finger” is not in the original, but the meaning is indisputable] shall be [or is, , strictly, was thicker. The LXX. has simply ] thicker than my father’s loins. [A figurative and perhaps proverbial expression. The sense is clear. “My hand shall be heavier than my father’s, my force greater than his, my weakness even stronger than his strength.” The counsel of the young men is full of flattery, which would be acceptable to a young king.

1Ki 12:11

And now whereas my father did lade you with [or, lay upon you] a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips [It is probable that the expression is not entirely figurative. It is quite possible that the levies of Amorites, Hittites (1Ki 9:20), etc; had been kept at their toils by the lash], but I will chastise you with scorpions. [“The very words have stings” (Hall). It is generally held that there is here “no allusion whatever to the animal, but to some instrument of scourgingunless, indeed, the expression is a mere figure”. Perhaps it is safer to understand it as a figure of speech, although the scorpion, unlike the serpent, is little like, or adapted to use as, a lash. Probably it was in the pain the whip caused that the resemblance lay (Rom 9:5). All the commentators mention that the later Romans used a whip called a “scorpio,” and cite Isidore (Orig. 5, 27) in proof. Gesenius, Keil, al. understand “whips with barbed points, like the point of a scorpion’s sting;” the Rabbins, Virgae spinis instructae; others, the thorny stem of the eggplant, by some called the “scorpion plant.” Compare our use of the word “cat.” “The yoke and whips go together, and are the signs of labouring service (Ecclus. 30:26, or 33:27)” Bhr.]

1Ki 12:12

So Jeroboam and [LXX. omits] all the people came to Rehoboam the third day [“Three days’ expectation had warmed these smoking Israelites” (Hall) ], as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day.

1Ki 12:13

And the king answered the people [the omission of Jeroboam’s name, though perhaps it cannot he pressed in argument, is noticeable] roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him.

1Ki 12:14

And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

1Ki 12:15

Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people, for the cause [or course of events; lit; turn] was from the Lord [“Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.” God did not inspire Rehoboam’s proud and despotic reply, but used it for the accomplishment of His purpose, the partition of the kingdom (cf. Exo 14:4; Mat 26:24). God makes the wrath of man to praise Him], that [Heb. in order that] he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by [Heb. in the hand of; cf. 1Ki 14:18; 1Ki 2:25, note] Ahijah the Shilonite [see on 1Ki 11:11] unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

1Ki 12:16

So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered [Heb. brought back word to; probably after some consultation amongst themselves] the king, saying, What portion have we in David? [Same expression as 2Sa 20:1. The words, interpreted by this passage and 2Sa 19:43, mean, “Since we have no kindness or fairness from David’s seed, what is his house to us? Why render homage to his son? We receive nought from him, why yield aught to him?”] neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse [i.e; “his tribe is not ours; his interests are not ours.” Bhr sees in the expression “son of Jesse” “an allusion to David’s humbler descent,” but surely without reason. It is simply a periphrasis for the sake of the parallelism. The rhythm almost elevates the words to the rank of poetry]: to your tents, O Israel [lit; thy tents, Or dwellings; i.e; “Disperse to your homes (see 1Ki 8:66; and cf. 2Sa 18:17; 2Sa 19:8; 2Sa 20:1), and prepare for war.” , which means primarily a “tent,” has for its secondary meaning, “habitation,” “home.” This crythe Marseillaise of Israelprobably had its origin at a time when the people dwelt in tents, viz; in the march through the desert (see Jos 22:4; Num 1:52; Num 9:18; Num 16:26) ]. Now see to thine own house, David [i.e; let the seed of David henceforth reign over the tribe of Judah, if it can. It shall govern the other tribes no longer. “It is not a threat of war, but a warning against interference” (Rawlinson). has the meaning of “look after,” “care for.” “David, the tribe father, is mentioned in place of his family” (Keil) ]. So Israel departed unto their [lit; his] tents [see note on 2Sa 8:1-18 :66].

1Ki 12:17

But as for the children of Israel which dwelt In the cities of Judah [i.e; “the Israelites proper or members of other tribes, who happened to be settled within the limits of the land of Judah” (cf. 1Ki 12:23). A number of Simeonites were (Rawlinson) certainly among them (Jos 19:1-9). The term “children of Israel” is henceforward to be understood in its restricted sense (see on 1Ki 12:1). It cannot include the men of Judah], Rehoboam reigned over them.

1Ki 12:18

Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute [Probably the same officer as the Adoniram of ch. 1Ki 4:6. For “Adoram,” the LXX. and other versions read “Adoniram” here. It is curious that a person of the same name, Adoram (LXX. Adoniram), was over David’s levy (2Sa 20:24). That there was a relationship, and that the office had descended from father to son, can hardly be doubted, but whether two persons or three are indicated it is impossible to say. It is of course just possible, though hardly likely that one and the same person (Ewald) can have been superintendent of servile work under David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. It is generally assumed that the young king sent this officer “to treat with the rebels and to appease them, as Josephus expressly says” (Bhr). It seems quite as likely that he was sent to coerce them, or to collect the taxes, as a summary way of showing that the king meant to enforce his rights and was not moved by their words. For it is hardly probable that such a proud and headstrong prince as Rehoboam would stoop, especially after the confident threats which he had just uttered, to parley with rebels. Such a man, guided by such counsellors, and inflated with a sense of his own power and importance, would naturally think of force rather than of conciliation or concessions. He would be for trying his whips of scorpions. And if conciliation had been his object, it is hardly likely that he would have employed Adoram, the superintendent of the levy, a man who would naturally be obnoxious to the people, to effect it. Moreover the sequelAdoram’s tragical endalso favours the supposition that he was sent, not “to arrange some alleviation of their burdens” (Rawlinson), but to carry out the high-handed policy Of the king]; and all Israel stoned him with stones [“With one exception, this was a bloodless revolution” (Stanley). It has been remarked that the practice of stoning is first heard of in the stony desert (Arabia Petraea). But in reality it is older than the date of the Exodus, as Exo 8:26 shows. And it is an obvious and ready and summary way of despatching obnoxious persons (cf. Exo 17:4; 1Sa 30:6; 1Ki 21:10). It is to this day a favourite method of the East for testifying hatred and intolerance], that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed [So the LXX; . The Hebrew literally means, as margin, “strengthened himeself.” But the A.V. gives the practical force of the word. He bestirred himself; he lost no time; the death of Adoram showed him the danger of a moment’s delay. “He saw those stones were thrown at him in his Adoram” (Hall).] to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.

1Ki 12:19

So Israel rebelled [lit; fell away (marg.) The common secondary meaning of the word is to transgress. Its use here may perhaps suggest that their rebellion was not without sin] against the house of David unto this day (see on 1Ki 8:8)].

1Ki 12:20

And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again [These words are hardly consistent with the idea that Jeroboam had been from the first the spokesman of “all Israel” in their interviews with Rehoboam. If, however, the received text of 1Ki 12:8, 1Ki 12:12 is retained (see on 1Ki 12:3), then we must understand the “all Israel” in 1Ki 12:1 of the representatives of the different tribes, and here, of the entire nation who had heard from its representatives, on their return to their homes (1Ki 12:16), of the presence of Jeroboam in the country], that they sent and called him unto the congregation [Where and when this gathering was held we are not informed. Probably it was at Shechem, and soon after Rehoboam’s flight. After the open and irreparable breach which they had made (1Ki 12:18), the leaders of the tribes would naturally assemble at once to concert measures for their defence and future government], and made him king [by anointing. Note on 1Ki 12:1] over all Israel [This public and formal consecration of Jeroboam completed the secession of the northern tribes. Was this secession sinful? Bhr, Keil, and others, who start from the assumption that secession was determined upon even before Rehoboam came to Shechem, and that the complaints of the people respecting the grievous service to which they had been subjected by Solomon were groundless, naturally conclude that it was altogether treasonable and unjustifiable. But is this conclusion borne out by the facts? We may readily admit that the schism was not accomplished without sin: we cannot but allow that Israel acted with undue precipitation, and that Rehoboam, who was “young and tenderhearted,” was entitled, for David’s and Solomon’s sake, as well as his own, to greater forbearance and consideration, and it is almost certain that both the “envy of Ephraim” and the ambition of Jeroboam largely influenced the result. At the same time, it is to be remembered that the division of the kingdom was ordained of God, and that the people had just cause of complaint, if not, indeed, sufficient warrant for resistance, in the arbitrary and insolent rejection of their petition by the young king. No law of God requires men to yield themselves up without a struggle to such cruel and abject slavery as Rehoboam threatened these men with. They judgedand who shall say unreasonably?from his words that they had only tyranny and cruelty to expect at his hands, and what wonder if they stood on their defence? They are only to be blamed because they did more. But lawful resistance not uncommonly ripens into unlawful rebellion]: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. [This general statement is qualified immediately afterwards (1Ki 12:21). The tribe of Benjamin, “the smallest of the tribes of Israel” (1Sa 9:21), “little Benjamin” (Psa 68:27), is here omitted as of comparatively small account. Exact precision has never characterized Oriental writers. There is no suspicion of untruth: it is the genius of the people to

“disdain the lore,

Of nicely calculated less and more.”

It may be added here that Edom remained under the sway of Judah until the reign of Jehoram (2Ki 8:20), just as Moab and other portions of Solomon’s empire for a considerable period formed part of the new kingdom of Israel (2Ki 1:1; 2Ki 3:4, 2Ki 3:5).]

1Ki 12:21

And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah with [Heb. and] the tribe of Benjamin, [It is at first sight somewhat surprising that Benjamin, so long the rival of Judah, and which had so long resisted the rule of David, should on this occasion have detached itself from the leadership of Ephraim, its near and powerful neighbour, and a tribe, too, with which it had a sort of hereditary connexion. That a sort of jealousy existed at one time between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, consequent, no doubt, on the transference of the sceptre from the house of Saul to that of David, is very evident. A thousand men of Benjamin constituted the following of the rebel Shimei, (2Sa 19:17). The rising of Sheba the Benjamite, again (2Sa 20:1), proves that the enmity and discontent were not even then subdued. But when the ten tribes fell away, Benjamin seems never to have faltered in its allegiance. The change is easily accounted for. It was the glory of Benjamin that Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth, the civil and religious capital of the nation, was largely within its border. “The city of the Jebusite” was in the lot of Benjamin (Jos 18:28). But it was also on the boundary line of Judah. This fact had, no doubt, brought the two tribes into close contact, and had given them interests in common, in fact had “riveted them together as by a cramp”; and now Benjamin could not fail to see that separation from Judah would mean the loss of Jerusalem (which would be largely peopled by the men of Judah, David’s tribe, and would be practically in their hands), while adhesion to Ephraim would not prevent the establishment of another sanctuary further north. The traditions of fifty years, consequently, and the common interest in the capital, prevailed over hereditary ties and ancient feuds, and decided Benjamin to cast in its lot with Judah;the more so, as the heads of this tribe may have felt, after once furnishing Israel with its king, as jealous of Ephraim as they had once been of Judah. It must not be forgotten, however, that some portions of Benjamin, including Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, were incorporated in the northern kingdom (Ewald) ], an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men [the LXX. has =120,000, but the larger number need create no astonishment. At the time of David’s census, the men of Judah numberedif the figures can be depended on500,000, while Abijah could muster some 18 years afterwards an army of 400,000 (2Ch 13:3) ], which were warriors [lit; making war], to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. [It is characteristic of Rehoboam that he proposes forthwith to subdue the rebellious tribes by force. Probably he had no idea to what extent the tribes would prove disloyal.]

1Ki 12:22

But the word of God came unto Shemaiah [This part of the history is probably derived from the “book” which this prophet wrote (2Ch 12:15). When Keil describes him as “a prophet who is not mentioned again,” he has surely overlooked 2Ch 12:7, 2Ch 12:8, where we find him prophesying with reference to the army of Shishak], the man of God [a common expression in the books of Kings. It rarely occurs in the other Scriptures. This designation is not altogether synonymous with “prophet.” It is used, for example, of angels (Jdg 13:6, Jdg 13:8), of Moses (Deu 33:1), and of David (2Ch 8:14), and would embrace any minister or servant of God, while is restricted to the teaching order. There were false prophets, but no false men of God. It is also worth considering whether the name of prophet may not have been practically restricted to, or bestowed by preference on, those who had received a prophetic training, the “sons of the prophets” who had been taught in the schools. Cf. 1Sa 10:5-12; 1Sa 19:20; Amo 7:14], saying.

1Ki 12:23

Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin; and to the remnant of the people [“the children of Israel” mentioned in 1Ki 12:17, where see note], saying.

1Ki 12:24

Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren [a timely reminder of the unity of the race, notwithstanding the division of the kingdom] the children of Israel: return every man to his house: for this thing [i.e; the division, rupture] is [lit; was] from me. [A prophet of Judah now confirms what a prophet of Israel had already announced]. They hearkened therefore unto the word of the Lord, and returned [not “because they probably saw that a war with the numerically greater, and just now bitterly excited, ten tribes would bring them into a worse condition still” (Bhr), but because of the “word of the Lord.” It was the remonstrance of the prophet alone restrained them. They knew their numerical inferiority before, but they nevertheless mustered for battle] to depart [a common Hebraism. The phrase in 2Ch 11:4, “they returned from going,” was probably designed as an explanation], according to the word of the Lord.

At this point the Vat. LXX. inserts along addition, which differs from, and indeed contradicts, the Hebrew text in some important particulars. Rehoboam is represented as 16 years of age (Hebrews 40), as reigning 12 years (Hebrews 17); his mother is Naanan (Heb. Naamah), and is the daughter of Ana, son of Nahash, king of Ammon. Jeroboam is described as son of Sarira, a harlot. He is appointed by Solomon superintendent of the levy of Ephraim, and builds for him a city Sarira, and also completes the circumvallation of Jerusalem. He has 300 chariots and aims at royalty. Solomon seeking to slay him, he flees to Shishak, king of Egypt, who treats him with distinction, giving him the sister of his own wife in marriage. Here his son Abijah is born, when Rehoboam has been, something like a year upon the throne. After his birth, Jeroboam asks a second time to be released: he returns to his own country, takes up his abode at Sarira, fortifies it, and gathers the tribe of Ephraim round him. Here Abijah falls sick, and the visit to the prophet, narrated in 2Ch 14:1-15; takes place. The child dies; there is general mourning, after which Jeroboam goes to Shechem, and collects the tribes. Here the prophet Shemaiah (not Ahijah) tears a new garment in twelve pieces, gives him ten, and promises him the dominion over ten tribes. After which follow the events of 2Ch 14:5 -24 of this chapter.

The great circumstantiality of this narrative has led some scholarsDean Stanley among themto prefer it before the Hebrew version. But its details will not bear careful examination, and there is little doubt that it is a compilation of later date. Its untrustworthiness has been well shown among others by Rawlinson, Speaker’s Commentary in loc. But he omits to notice what is perhaps its strongest condemnation, viz; that this LXX. addition is in conflict with the LXX. (and Hebrews) text of 2Ch 11:1-23. The account of Jeroboam’s marriage with the sister of the queen, e.g; is manifestly a variation of the history of Hadad (2Ch 11:1-23. 2Ch 11:19; see also 2Ch 11:22). Nor does it harmonize with the preceding history of this chapter, as given by the LXX.

HOMILETICS

1Ki 12:13-15

Judicial Infatuation.

It is impossible to read this history of the great rebellion, even at the present day, without a certain feeling of sadness. We see here a young prince, heir to one of the greatest empires of antiquity, the inheritor of an illustrious and unequalled name, with all the advantages which the glory and greatness of his father could give him, reaping the benefits of a long peace, his coffers full of money, his cities filled with all manner of store, his fleets ploughing the sea, his army guarding his frontier; we see him wantonly flinging these singular advantages away from him, and absolutely courting his own destruction and the dismemberment of his kingdom. We see a position which has had but few, if any, parallels recklessly sacrificed for the lack of a few conciliatory words. It needed but the slenderest modicum of common sense and all would have gone well. He had but to stoop for one day in order to conquer forever (1Ki 12:7). But no; we hear him instead hurling opprobrious words at the spokesmen of the ten tribes, and forthwith the land is ablaze with insurrection. He madly talks of the might of his little finger, of whips and scorpions, and from that hour his kingdom is divided; the holy people are ranged under hostile banners, and the way is opened for the schism in the Church. We talk sometimes of men who dance on the edge of a volcano, and we have read of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning, but it may be questioned whether history affords a more pitiable instance of folly and infatuation than this. And it was such infatuation that we can hardly resist the conclusion that it was, somehow, retributive and judicial. “Who would not have looked any whither for the cause of this evil, rather than to heaven? Yet the holy God challenges it to Himself” (Bp. Hall). “The cause was from the Lord.”

It is well that we should understand, however, that this gross infatuation was only one out of many factors which produced the disruption. The division of the kingdomthe first act in the long drama of retribution for the sin of Solomonwas to a large extent the natural result of the rule and policy of Solomon. No doubt of all the causes of revolt the prophecy of Ahijah was the most influential. It was that “beginning” which, as Aristotle sagely remarks, is often the larger half. Possibly but for that, Israel’s “winter of discontent” would have been “made glorious by the summer sun” of the accession of a young prince. Probably but for that, Jeroboam would never have “lifted up his hand against the king.” But we must not shut our eyes to the fact that the people had had a “heavy yoke” to hear. Rehoboam himself confessed to this (1Ki 12:14). It is idle to say that their demands betray a foregone conclusion to revolt. The contrary is distinctly implied in 1Ki 12:4, 1Ki 12:7. Nor is it the fact that the rebellion was wholly due to the jealousy of Ephraim, for that proud tribe had readily acquiesced in the supremacy of Judah during the reign of David. Indeed, the rebellion is almost inexplicable, except on the supposition that, the people had suffered real hardships, and carried heavy burdens during Solomon s reign. Men do not soon forget the glories of such an empire as his, and do not wantonly tear it asunder, and reduce it to impotence, unless they have had substantial grievances. But in this case, so many were their grounds of disaffection that, remembering that Jeroboam, who no doubt appeared to them in the light of a champion and tribune of the people, was in reserve, should they need his services, it only needed the infatuation of Rehoboam to kindle the smouldering embers of discontent into a flame.

And when we see in this inconceivable infatuation the immediate cause of the disruption, we must still remember how it was that Rehoboam came to be capable of such egregious folly. Are we to suppose that he was expressly blinded for the occasion? Is it implied that, like Saul, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him, or that, like Ahab, he was the victim of heaven-sent delusions? Is it not rather enough to believe that he was simply left to himself, to be the sport of his own folly and pride? His infatuation would still be judicial, if we saw in it, not the strange perversity of a moment, but the spontaneous outcome of his birth and education. Indeed, in that case, it would be still more conspicuously the just and appropriate retribution for his father’s sin. It was because of Solomon’s foreign wives, and the idolatries which, with his sanction, they practised, that Solomon’s empire was to be torn from his son (1Ki 11:33). And now we find that the dismemberment of this empire was brought about by the son of one of these strange womenthe child of an unregenerate Ammonitess. It has been said that “every great man is the son of his mother.” The same remark might be made of every great fool. It was probably because Naamah was what she was that Rehoboam was what he was. “The two worst men in my parish,” said a clergyman, “are what their mothers have made them.” We could not expect much character, not to speak of wisdom, in Solomon’s mistresses, who were chosen for their charms, and whoso cloistered life, amid the intrigues, and follies, and pettinesses of the harem, did not fit them to be the mothers of kings. What knowledge of the world or of men, what honour, what common sense could we hope to find in one brought up under such influences? The hearing of Rehoboam is precisely the bearing we should expect as the result of the training of an Eastern harem. It appears, consequently, that we may justly regard his infatuation as judicial, not so much in the sense of being inspired for the moment, but as being the natural consequence of his parents’ folly and sin. But let us now consider what shape this same infatuation took: let us separate it into its constituent parts, that we may the better understand Rehoboam’s character, and see the workings of his mind. Observe

I. HIS ENTIRE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF DANGER. There were not wanting, to those who could read the signs of the times, many indications of peril. It was a “significant hint” that Shechem had been selected for his coronation; that the tribes insisted on a conference; that instead of acclamations he was met with stipulations. It was a presage of danger that their first words to Solomon’s son, to David’s grandson, were of a “heavy yoke” and a grievous burden. It was still more ominous that Jeroboam had already raised the standard of revolt, and that this arch rebelaccording to the received text, but see on 1Ki 12:3, 1Ki 12:20was present among the malcontents. Even if he had not at that time been recalled from Egypt, still Rehoboam knew full well that he was there, and ready to rebel again if opportunity offered. All these were mutterings of the coming storm, and no one who was not a fool could have failed to perceive their import.

II. HIS VACILLATION AND IRRESOLUTION. Bishop Hall observes that his stipulating top three days in which to consider their demand was the only word he spoke which argued wisdom. Matthew Henry, on the other hand, thinks that it was “impolitic to take time to consider,” and it may well be doubted whether this was not really a false and dangerous move. Had he bluntly refused all concessions and laid hands on the ringleaders, it is very probable that such a display of energy would have quelled the spirit of insurrection. Or had he graciously and instantly promised a redress of their grievances, he would have preserved his crown. But this delay was dangerous. It set them a-thinking what they would do in case of a refusal. A Fabian policy has saved some states, no doubt; but how many has it destroyed? And if, as has been suggested (on verse 5), the object of the three days’ delay was that he might summon his young companions to his side, its unwisdom is still more apparent.

III. HIS PRIDE AND OBSTINACY. It was pride, not mental incapacity, led him to reject the counsel of the old men and seek for further advice. It was because it went against the grain to be a “servant,” even for one day. That they should have presumed to ask concessions, or to parley with him at all, was an offence in his eyes. It is easy to read his vexation between the lines. With his high-flown notions of Divine right, with the characteristic contempt of an autocrat for the masses, it was mortifying to find his subjects bandying words with him. We may be pretty sure that, had the old men advised “whips of scorpions,” etc; we should have heard of no further consultation. The pride of Solomon and the pretensions of Naamah reappear in their son.

IV. HIS FOLLY. This, which is conspicuous all the way through, is especially manifest in

(1) his turning to the young men for advice, and

(2) in his taking it in preference to that of the old men.

We might also instance the threats to which he stooped, and the mission of Adoram, but these come more appropriately under

V. HIS INSOLENCE AND DEFIANCE. Had he wished to provoke a rebellion, he could not have taken more effectual means to secure the end. “I will add to your yoke.” “I will chastise you with scorpions.” What cry could he possibly expect in return, except a war cry, such as he presently heard? If he had meant to punish, he should surely have held his tongue and used his hands. To boast of what he would do is like the Chinese warrior, who thinks to disperse his enemies by a ferocious shout. And to send Adoram, not to make overtures of peaceRehoboam’s folly would hardly go so far as to select him for such a missionbut, as it would seem, to collect tribute or to make a show of his authority, why, if he had designed to make the breach irreparable, and to stamp out the last faint hope of reconciliation, he could not have done more. It was the act of a spoilt child, it was the coming out in the flesh of what was bred in the bone.

Amongst the lessons this history teaches are these:

(1) The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, and that by the operation of so called natural laws.

(2) That God uses the folly, as well as the wrath, of man to praise Him.

(3) That if a fool be brayed in a mortar with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him,

(4) That the mother has the marring or the making of her child in her hands.

(5) That,

“A pebble in the streamlet’s source,
Hath turned the course of many a river;
A dewdrop on the baby plant,
Hath warped the giant oak forever.”

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

1Ki 12:1-5

The Dead and the Living.

“The king is dead; long live the king!” This paradox expresses an important truth. Bathsheba recognized it when David on his deathbed promised her that Solomon, her son, should succeed him on the throne, and she said, “Let my lord king David live forever” (1Ki 1:31).

I. SOLOMON IS DEAD.

1. His active form is no longer seen.

(1) He “slept with his fathers” (1Ki 11:43). He has stiffened into a corpse. Perfectly passive now! What a moral! The doom of all Work while it is day.

(2) He was “buried in the city of David his father.” He had a royal funeral. But all this state was simply to bury himto put him out of sight. Much wisdom is buried alive in state display.

(3) Jeroboam may now return from Egypt. The protection of Shishak is no longer needed. Human wrath has its limitations. Not so Divine wrath (see Mat 10:28).

2. Where is the disembodied spirit?

(1) Not extinct. Not in stupor. The term “sleep” relates to the body. It anticipates for it an awakinga resurrection.

(2) Stirring in the world of spirits as it stirred when embodied in this world of matter.

(3) What a world is that! How populous! How darkly veiled! yet how interesting to us who are on our way thither!

II. BUT HE SURVIVES IN REHOBOAM. This fact is the ground of

1. Rehoboam’s claim to the throne.

(1) He is Solomon’s representative. This is more than a law phrase. Had he not been the son of Solomon he would not have been invited to Shechem. We inherit responsibilities.

(2) Solomon lives in Rehoboam with a potency to move “all Israel.” See the nation from Dan to Beersheba, under this influence, streaming down to Shechem.

2. The nation’s suit to the claimant.

(1) In this they recognise the claim of Solomon’s representative to the crown.

(2) Also that he may likewise oppress them as Solomon had done (see 1Ki 4:7, 1Ki 4:22; 1Ki 9:15). From Solomon’s oppressions they seek of Solomon, in Rehoboam, relief.

(3) How history verifies prophecy (see 1Sa 8:10-18).

III. SO SURVIVING, HIS INFLUENCE IS MODIFIED.

1. A new individual appears.

(1) Rehoboam is not the facsimile of Solomon. He is indeed the son of a wise man; but the son, not of his wisdom, but of his folly. His mother was an Ammonitess. This fact is emphasised, according to the Hebrew style, by being stated and restated (1Ki 14:21, 1Ki 14:31).

(2) His character is the resultant of the influences of Solomon, of Naamah, and of those which also flowed into the current of his life during the apostasy of his father. He became the impersonation of these various moral forces.

(3) The influence of Solomon in Rehoboam, therefore, is considerably modified. Parents are to a large extent responsible not only for their own direct influence upon the character of their children, but also for the contemporary influences to which they allow them to be exposed.

2. New relationships have therefore to be formed.

(1) The people suffered the imposts of Solomon while he lived. They grew upon them by degrees, and brought with them a system of vested interests. The whole system became so crystallized around the person of the king that it was difficult to obtain relief.

(2) Now Solomon is dead all this is loosened, and the opportunity is given for the nation to remonstrate. They are prompt to improve it.

(3) Jeroboam is not only present now, which he would not have been had Solomon lived, but is made the spokesman of the people.

(4) Rehoboam confesses the force of these altered circumstances in listening to the suit, and taking time to deliberate upon the nature of his reply. The value of influences is a most profitable subject for Christian consideration; presentposthumous (see 2Pe 1:15).M.

1Ki 12:6-11

Israel’s Magna Charta.

The question submitted to Rehoboam at Shechem concerned the constitution of the monarchy. Hitherto there had been no constitution defining the rights of the people and limiting the power of the crown. Rehoboam took three days to deliberate upon the people’s Bill of Rights, and in that interval took counsel. The old men who stood before Solomon advised concession, while the young ones, who had grown up with him, recommended resistance. Wisdom was with the ancients.

I. LIMITED MONARCHY IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE.

1. Because it recognises their rights.

(1) The people do not exist for the king. They may be governed as republic without a king.

(2) But the king exists for the people. Where no people are there can be no king.

(3) For a king, therefore, to use the people simply for his own aggrandisement and ignore their rights is preposterous (Jer 2:14).

2. respects their happiness.

(1) Since the people collectively are of more importance than an individual monarch, the haughty bearing of a monarch is out of place. So the sages counselled Rehoboam to “serve” the people and “speak good words to them.”

(2) The interests of a good king will be bound up with the happiness of his subjects, and he cannot reasonably object to a constitution that will recognise this community of interests.

II. IT IS BEST ALSO FOR THE PRINCE.

1. It encourages his virtues.

(1) It does this by limiting his extravagance. Solomon would have been far happier had his people been saved the charge of building palaces for, and sustaining in state, seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines.

(2) For what would be necessary to sustain his rank a constitutional king might trust the good sense of his people. At Shechem they did not seek exemption from taxation, but relief from its excesses. They knew that it would not be to the credit of a great people to pauperise their prince.

2. It gives stability to his throne.

(1) “They will be thy servants forever.” Such was the manner in which this was expressed by the sages. It will be their interest to be so. Gratitude also will bind them. The loyalty of love is stronger and more enduring than that of fear. This is the loyalty which the gospel claims, and the constancy of the subjects of the kingdom of Christ is witnessed in s million martyrdoms.

(2) Who rules over a loving people may be tranquil. He need not fear the poniard of the assassin. (This is the paradise of tyrants!) He will have the joy of ruling over a happy nation. The typical constitutional monarch is the father of his people.

III. ADVOCATES OF TYRANNY SCORN TO REASON.

1. The young counsellors give no reasons.

(1) This method they leave to the ancients. For reasons they substitute smart speech. “Thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins.” Pertness too often has displaced reason.

(2) Why should reasons be given by one who claims a Divine right to act as he pleases?

2. But may there not be a benevolant autocracy?

(1) Certainly. And if this can be guaranteed, together with competent wisdom, then there is no better government. For is not this the very idea of the government of God?

(2) But who can guarantee this in human kingdoms? The people certainly are as likely to know what is for their welfare as the majority of their kings.

(3) What if the autocrat should prove a fool? What if he should prove a devil? Would not a kingdom in this case be a hell upon earth?

(4) Rehoboam seems to have combined the satanic and the foolish. Lost the greater part of his kingdom; reigned over the remnant wickedly. Christians should pray for their rulers. They should bless God for their liberties.M.

1Ki 12:12-15

Infatuation.

“Whom the gods mean to destroy they first infatuate.” Such was the observation of a heathen philosopher; and it is true, only that the infatuators are devils, and God permits. The text furnishes a case in point. What but infatuation could have prompted Rehoboam to have acted so insanely? It is seen

I. IN HIS REFUSAL TO HEARKEN TO THE PEOPLE.

1. They assembled to honour him.

(1) He was invited to Shechem to meet them that they might crown him.

(2) They promised to serve him as they had served his father. They had a reservation, but

2. Their reservation was not unreasonable.

(1) They had suffered what they called a “grievous yoke” of taxation and servitude, of which they desired a relaxation. Had they not a right to demand this? Did the people exist to be the slaves of their kings?

(2) They did not ask to be released from all taxation and service. They acknowledged the duty of sustaining the legitimate burdens of the state. Why, then, did he not hearken?

II. IN THE ANSWER HE GAVE THEM.

1. Respecting his father’s administration.

(1) He owned that his father had ruled with rigour; that he had made their yoke heavy. He put it even stronger than the complainants; that he had “chastised them with whips.”

(2) Might he not rather have softened it to them? He could have reminded them that Solomon had created their commerce; that their commerce had so enriched them that they might hear the taxes; that his wisdom had made the nation great and respected; that he had built their temple; that they had something for their taxes in great public works.

(3) But he lacked, not only the wisdom of his father, but also the feelings of a good son.

2. Respecting his own.

(1) He declares that he will rule them more oppressively than his father did; that he will increase their burdens and sting them with “scorpions”knotted whips armed with iron points.

(2) These rough and hard words were paraded and rendered more offensive by the rough and hard manner (1Ki 12:18).

(3) How gratuitous was this insolence! What but infatuation could have prompted it? It is seen

III. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE ANSWER.

1. It was deliberately given.

(1) It could not claim the excuse of being uttered thoughtlessly in haste, for he had taken three days to consider it.

(2) In taking these three days the tyrant betrayed the fool. It gave the people time to confer and agree upon a policy.

2. It was advisedly given.

(1) He did not speak without counsel. He had taken the advice of the wits with whom he had been brought up.

(2) He had also consulted the sages who had been schooled in the wisdom of Solomon, and he might have acted upon it but did not.

(3) He left God out of his counsels, though his Shechinah was still in the temple.

3. He trusted in his fortune.

(1) He was the son of Solomon. Probably the only son. We read of no other; had there been one he would probably have been mentioned as a rival who would keep the nation united. (Note: population is not increased by polygamy. Hos 4:10.) Rehoboam, therefore, presumed upon the strength of his claim to the throne.

(2) Even the presence of Jeroboam at the head of the remonstrants did not shake his confidence in his fortune. He could scarcely have been ignorant of the message of God to his father, and the corresponding prophecy of Ahijah. But what are the words of Jehovah to this son of Naamah the Ammonitess, whose national god was Molech?

(3) But the Providence he ignored is seen in the infatuation that ignored it. The cause, the () revolution, was from the Lord (1Ki 12:15.) “They that lose the kingdom of heaven throw it away as Rehoboam did his, by their own willfulness and folly” (Matthew Henry). Miserable is the infatuation that imperils the salvation of the soul.M.

1Ki 12:16-20

The Revolution.

The unconciliatory, insulting, insane conduct of Rehoboam in rejecting the Bill of Rights of the people of Israel provoked a revolution in the state. This is recorded in the text, in which we learn that

I. IT COMMENCED WITH THE REJECTION OF THE KING.

1. This act was done in haste.

(1) By his hesitation at such a time, under such circumstances, to listen to their grievances, the people saw that Rehoboam was a tyrant. They accordingly availed themselves of the three days he took to consider his reply, to concert their measures, and were therefore ready for action.

(2) They soon “saw that the king hearkened not.” He left them in no doubt, for he took high ground at once. And they were as prompt in their resolution.

2. It was done in anger.

(1) This is seen in the manner in which the leaders of the people mingle their advice to their constituents with their answer to the king (1Ki 12:16).

(2) Also in the promptness with which the people acted upon the advice. “So Israel departed unto their tents.”

3. But their anger carried them too far.

(1) Why include David in their resentment? Had they no inheritance in the son of Jesse? Would they have said so when David delivered them from the hand of Goliath? How fitful is the passion of the multitude! How soon are good men forgotten!

(2) In rejecting David did they not forsake the Lord who gave them David and his seed forever by a covenant of salt? (2Ch 13:5-8.)

(3) In rejecting David, in whom was the promise of Messiah, did they not go far towards rejecting Christ? See Stephen’s argument, Act 7:1-60.

(4) Were they not impolitic in this? In so rejecting David they alienated from their cause the great tribe of Judah. Wrong is never truly politic.

(5) In their hot haste they do not consult God, either by urim or by prophet (Hos 8:4).

II. IT WAS COMPLETED IN THE CROWNING OF JEROBOAM.

1. Between these acts there was an interval.

(1) While in their tents the Israelites were still open to consider. They were as yet committed to no policy for the future. Time and reflection might have shown them that their anger had been carried too far.

(2) Wise counsel now might have brought before them the evils of a division in the nation. Thus they would be weakened in the presence of the heathen. And in case of differences with Judah difficulties might arise in respect to their religious duties. For their temple was in the dominion of Judah. They may, therefore, be liable to temptations to irreligion, if not to idolatry.

(3) While in their tents they were likewise still open to negotiations. Reasonable concessions now from Rehoboam might bring them back to their allegiance.

2. But Rehoboam’s .folly hastened the sequel

(1) He sent among them “Adoram, who was over the tribute.” Adoram, from his office, was odious to them, for the taxes he had collected were the very ground of their complaint. Thus the infatuation of the king was as conspicuous in his choice of an ambassador as in that of his counsellors.

(2) The haste with which this was done aggravated the evil. It was done while he was yet in Shechem, before his return to Jerusalem. If Adoram was commissioned then to collect taxes, Rehoboam lost no time in producing his scorpion.

(3) Irritated as they were, this act roused their resentment to fury, and “all Israel stoned” Adoram to death.

3. They now completed the revolution.

(1) Rehoboam, in terror of his life, mounted his chariot, and fled to Jerusalem. So ignominiously ended his threatening words! (Pro 11:2; Pro 16:18; Pro 17:19; Pro 18:12.)

(2) Israel, now free from the embarrassment of the monarch’s presence proceeded at once to crown Jeroboam.

(3) But in all this there is no consultation with the Lord; yet to the letter are the predictions of Ahijah verified. There is a Providence in human affairs. Prophecy makes this evident. Wicked men are, in their very waywardness, unconsciously made the instruments of that Providence in bringing punishment upon themselves.M.

1Ki 12:21-24

The Message of Shemaiah.

In the order of Providence the words of the prophet Ahijah became so far translated into history, that ten of the tribes of Israel had revolted from the son of Solomon and had made the son of Nebat their king. Rehoboam, unwilling to lose so important a portion of his kingdom, was now mustering a formidable army to reduce them to submission. At this juncture the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah. Let us consider

I. THE MESSAGE.

1. It was the word of Jehovah.

(1) So it is worthy of all respect. It is the word of Infinite Wisdom and Knowledge. It is the word of the Supreme Arbiter.

(2) God does not speak immediately to men upon ordinary occasions. Indirectly He speaks to us evermore and in a million voices.

(3) Happy is that people among whom the voice of God is heard. This was eminently the happiness of Israel. It was a sad day in Israel when there was “no open vision” (1Sa 3:1).

2. It came by the hand of Shemaiah.

(1) God spake “in divers manners.” By audible voice, as from Sinai; by urim, as in the temple; by dream; and by prophet, as in the present case.

(2) Ahijah was a man of God. Such in general were the prophets. But sometimes it pleased God to use persons of equivocal character;Balaam, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Caiaphas (Joh 11:49-52).

3. It came to the whole community.

(1) To Rehoboam. He was first mentioned as the head. Also because he was the principal cause of the mischief which he now sought to repair.

(2) To Judah and Benjamin. These tribes were so united as to be viewed as “one tribe,” and are unitedly called “Judah.” The temple was actually within Benjamin’s boundary.

(3) To the remnant of the people. These consisted of priests and Levites, and godly people out of all the tribes who were unwilling to separate themselves from the house of David (2Ch 11:13-16).

4. It commanded peace.

(1) They were not to fight with their brethren. The case must be extreme that can justify a civil war. What miseries must have ensued if 180,000 warriors of Judah had encountered a corresponding army of Israel!

(2) They were to submit to a revolution which was from the Lord. Not that God was the author of it, but permitted to be brought about by the king and his people for the punishment of their wickedness. “What is brought about in the course of God’s providence is considered and spoken of as done by Him as a general would say that he drew the enemy into a snare, which he had only laid in his way” (Julius Bate).

II. ITS RECEPTION.

1. They hearkened to the word.

(1) They recognized it as the word of God. Shemaiah was known to be a “man of God.” His message also agreed to that of Ahijah, the fulfilment of a part of which pledged the fulfilment of the remainder.

(2) To resist now would be to fight against God. This would be a hopeless business. But is not this the attitude of every sinner?

2. They returned to their houses.

(1) The remnant of Israel were naturally glad to be spared the horrors of a war with their brethren.

(2) So were the people of Judah and Benjamin. People are generally averse to war unless stirred up to it by their rulers. What a responsibility rests with war makers!

(3) Rehoboam is powerless without the people. He is now thoroughly cowed. The discipline was good for him. This was seen in the next three years of his reign. It were well if all men recognised God’s word when it comes to them. We have God’s word written in the Scriptures of truth. Do we take it homo to guide and control our conduct?

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

1Ki 12:12-16

The rending of the kingdom.

The name of Rehoboam is remarkable as seen in the light of the facts of his history. The “enlarger of the kingdom” becomes the chief instrument in its disruption. The one strong nation, the throne of which he inherited from his father, is changed by his folly into two comparatively weak and distracted kingdoms, which maintain towards each other an attitude of perpetual jealousy and strife. The revolt of the ten tribes was a calamity from the ill effects of which the land never recovered. Both politically and religiously the unity of the chosen people was hopelessly broken, and the career of each separate division became henceforth one of ever deepening corruption. The northern kingdom was governed for two hundred and fifty years by a succession of men who followed only too closely in the steps of “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” Their reigns were little else than a story of crime and bloodshed and confusion. And though the history of Judah was not quite so dark, it tells very much the same tale. Few of its kings were wholly free from the prevalent wickedness. The efforts of the noblest of them, aided by all the moral influence of a long line of inspired prophets, were powerless to arrest the downfall of the state; till at last, after three hundred and eighty years, it sunk into the shame and misery of the Captivity. How can it be said of all this, that “The cause was from the Lord”? Look

(1) at the human element,

(2) at the Divine element, in this transaction. It is full of meaning forevery age.

I. THE HUMAN ELEMENT. The rending of the kingdom was not a sudden event that came without warning. As in all such cases, a variety of circumstances prepared the way for it. There were slumbering sources of mischief, certain conditions of thought and feeling, specially old jealousies between the tribes of Ephraim and Judah, that made it inevitable. But having regard to the nearer occasions, note

(1) How the seed of evil sown in one generation bears deadly fruit in the next. Trace the calamity back to the time when Solomon’s heart first began to turn from the Lord. The root of it lay in his idolatry, and in the oppressions into which his luxury led him. That idolatry undermined the deepest foundation of the nation’s unity in its loyalty to Jehovah, the Great Invisible King; that tyranny violated the public sense of righteousness, which is the strength of every nation, and kindled smouldering fire of discontent, which was sure, when occasion served, to burst into a flame. So true is it that the evil, as well as the good, men do “lives after them.” Through the subtle relations that exist between man and man, generation and generation, the possible influence of any form of wrong doing can never be measured. It spreads in widening circles. As in the line of individual history every man reaps what he sows

“Our deeds still travel with us from afar,
And what we have been makes us what we are”

so in the line of succeeding generations. Germs of evil sown by the fathers spring up among their children. There is a conservation of moral forces as of material. Let a corrupting power be once set in motion, and, though hidden for awhile, it is sure to appear again in some riper and more extended form. The nation retains its visible unity under Solomon, but when the charm of his personal reign is over the disintegrating work that has been going on beneath the surface is made manifest.

(2) The danger there is in following the prompting of foolish inexperience and headstrong self will. Rehoboam was wise in taking counsel of his advisers in this emergency. His folly lay in listening to those who flattered his vanity, rather than those whose prudence was a safer guide; and in supposing that, whether the discontent that urged the plea of oppression was reasonable or not, heavier oppression would cure it. It is a familiar picture of human life that we have here. “Days should speak, and multitude of years teach wisdom” (Job 32:7); but how often is the counsel of youthful incompetence followed because it is more agreeable. There is a time to resist as well as to yield; but experience shows that the pride that refuses all reasonable concession, and perhaps adds insult to wrong, defeats its own end. To stoop is often to conquer. To humble one’s self is the way to be exalted. Imperious self will rushes blindly to its own ruin. Kindly human sympathy and generous self abandonment win honour and power. “He that would be great among you,” etc. (Mat 20:26, Mat 20:27).

II. THE DIVINE ELEMENT. This is seen in two respects.

(1) So far as these events were the result of the wrong doing of men, God ordains the laws by virtue of which that result comes to pass. All sin is a defiance of the Divine Authority. But the sovereignty of God is proclaimed in the very disasters that follow it and avenge it. What is the punishment of sin but an assertion, in a form that cannot be avoided, of the authority against which it is a rebellion? We can no more avert the penalty that treads on the heels of trangression than we can escape from our own shadow, or change the course of nature, and that because we cannot get beyond the reach of God. The law that governs it is backed by all the forces of Omnipotence. It is but a phase of the Will that is “holy and just and good.” Learn to look through all the wayward and uncertain forms of human action to the majesty of that Eternal Righteousness that “cannot be mocked,” but will vindicate itself in unfailing sequences of reward and punishment.

(2) Evil as these events and doings may be, God works out through them His own all-wise purposes. The principle involved in this may be profoundly mysterious to us, but the fact is too manifest to be denied. Jeroboam may have been utterly wrong in the spirit that moved him, taking advantage of tribal jealousy for the purposes of his own ambition; and yet he did but fulfil the Divine decree expressed through Ahijah the Shilonite (1Ki 11:29 seq.), and even through the prediction of the patriarch Jacob, which gave to Joseph the ascendancy and declared that the seed of Ephraim should “become a multitude of nations.” Rehoboam’s high-handed policy was without excuse, and yet he and his foolish counsellors were but ministers of the Divine purpose, maintaining God’s choice of the house of David, and helping to fulfil the prophecy that the “sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.” All history is full of illustrations of the way in which God makes the evil of the world, in itself essentially at variance with His will, to serve Him. All streams of human folly and wrong, wandering and tortuous as they may be, become tributary to the great river of His purpose, “He maketh the wrath of man to praise Him.” The highest example is the sacrifice of Jesus, man’s iniquity working out the world’s redemption. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands,” etc. (Act 2:23). The final verification of this truth belongs to the time when, out of all the sin and strife and sorrow of the ages, God shall bring forth the glorious triumph of His gracious sovereignty, the gathering together into one of all things in Christ.”W.

HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND

1Ki 12:13, 1Ki 12:14

Rehoboam’s Folly.

Such madness is scarcely credible in the son of Solomon. These two kings present a remarkable contrast. Solomon at twenty years of age is the wisest man of his times, Rehoboam his son, at forty, is unfit to rule himself or his people. Wisdom is not by descent, but is the gift of God. Describe the scene in the chapter: the visit of Rehoboam to Shechem, probably with a view to conciliate the ten tribes; the complaint of the people; the two councils of the king; the maddening effect of his reply. The study of small and foolish men is advantageous, as well as the study of the great and wise, that by their follies we may be warned. Rehoboam’s faults he on the surface, as would be natural in so shallow a character as his, A careful study of the chapter reveals to us the following.

I. REHOBOAM‘S FEEBLENESS OF CHARACTER. We should expect of one who succeeded to the throne in the prime of his life some clear notions of the policy he would pursue. Brought up in a court to which the rulers of other peoples came (1Ki 10:24), over which the wisest king of that age ruled, he was rich in natural advantages. He could also have discovered for himself the condition of the people, their causes of complaint, etc. Had he given himself to such thought he would have been prepared for prompt and resolute action on his accession. Instead of this he seems helpless; turns now to these and now to those for counsel, and has not even enough wisdom to weigh the value of advice when it is given. “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel,” is a law of far-reaching application. Amongst the virtues we should inculcate in our children is that of sober self-reliance. It may be fostered in the home with safety and advantage. Trust a child with something which he is free to use or abuse, in order to test him, and develop in him this grace. Probably Rehoboam had been brought up in the harem, and so had the heart of a child, with the years of a man. All gifts must be exercised to increase their value. “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways,” and an example of this lies before us.

II. REHOBOAM‘S CONTEMPT OF EXPERIENCE. He consulted the old advisers of Solomon, it is true, but clearly for the look of the thing only. Directly after speaking with “the responsible ministers of the crown,” he turned to the courtiers, who were far less able to advise in such a crisis. Job says, “With the ancients is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.” This is not always true. A man may be old without being wise, he may go through many experiences without being experienced. Still, other things being equal, a long study of affairs gives knowledge and discretion. It would clearly be so, with men chosen by the wise Solomon. Besides, those who have already won their honours are more disinterested than those who are ambitiously seeking to win them; and those whose reputations are high are more careful to guard themselves against folly than those who have no reputation to lose. [Found on such principles the duties of submission to authority, of reverence to age, etc; which are the essentials of a happy home and of a peaceful society.]

III. REHOBOAM‘S RESORT TO THE FOOLISH. The answer of the young men showed their folly. That such a spirit should exist is a proof that in the later years of Solomon the people about him had sadly deteriorated.

(1) These were the boon companions of Rehoboam, and knowing his haughty temper they flattered him to the top of his bent.

(2) They were courtiers brought up amid the luxuries of the splendid reign just ended, and knew little or nothing of the condition of the people. For these and other reasons they were of all others the most unfit to give counsel in this crisis. [Give examples from history of kings ruined by their favourites.] We should always suspect those who gratify our vanity, or seek to further our lower pleasures. Show the evils which arise, especially to weak characters, from foolish associates. “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.” “Forsake the foolish, and live.” “Blessed is he that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.”

IV. REHOBOAM‘S BOASTFULNESS OF HIS POWER. “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins.” A proverbial expression to denote that his power was greater than his father’s. Such bragging is no sign of courage. At the first outbreak of rebellion, this boaster “made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.” A strong character expresses itself not in great words, but in great deeds. The boastful Peter fails, the silent Jn stands firm. The Pharisee is rejected, the publican justified. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted, and he that exalteth himself shall be abased.”

V. REHOBOAM‘S ABUSE OF HIS AUTHORITY. “My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke,” etc. This was not the speech of one who felt himself to be a shepherd of God’s flock, but of one who assumed despotic authority. This was never permitted to a king of Israel, nor is it intended by God that any man should thus rule. It would be an evil to the ruler himself as well as to his people. Least of all is it to be tolerated in the Christian Church. The highest in ecclesiastical office are forbidden to be “lords over God’s heritage,” but are to be “examples to the flock.” Christ said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them but ye shall not be so” (Luk 22:24-29).

VI. REHOBOAM‘S NEGLECT OF PRAYER. How differently he began his reign from his father! Solomon went first to God; Rehoboam went hither and thither for counsel, but never turned to God at all. How often we act thus in our temporal perplexities, in our theological difficulties, etc. How sadly we forget the words, “If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God,” etc. (Jas 1:5-8). Throw the lurid light of this story on Pro 1:1-33; and make personal application of the warning given there.A.R.

1Ki 12:16

The Revolt.

This was the song of the insurrection. It is the Marseillaise of Israelitish history. We heard it first after the revolt of Absalom (2Sa 20:1). It appears to have originated with “Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite.” The revolt described in our text was more serious, beginning as it did the ruin of Solomon’s splendid kingdom. All such national events are worthy of study. Moral causes lie at the root of them all, and the hand of God is over them all. The moral and Divine are more clearly revealed in Old Testament history; hence in part its value. In tracing this great revolution to its causes, we do not forget, though we do not dwell upon, two factors to which our attention is called by Scripture

(1) the design of God, and

(2) the ambition of Jeroboam.

We must remember, however, in regard to the former that God expressly declared that He would base future events on the king’s obedience or disobedience to His law. And as to the ambitious designs of Jeroboam, they would all have been futile if (as God had foreseen) there had not been popular discontent, combined with princely folly. What, then, were the ultimate causes of the event described?

I. TRIBAL JEALOUSY. This had always existed. Ephraim and Judah had specially displayed it. The jealousy of Ephraim had asserted itself both against Gideon and Jephthah (Jdg 8:1; Jdg 12:1). The pride of this tribe was fostered by such facts as these: Joshua sprung from it, Samuel was born within its borders, Saul was of Benjamin, hereditary with Joseph; its geographical position gave it power, etc. Hence, till David’s time, the leadership of the nation was practically in the hands of Ephraim. He reigned seven years over Judah before he could obtain supremacy over the other tribes. He dealt wisely with those who belonged to Ephraim, selecting some of them for special favour, etc. Solomon, however, aggravated the discontent by his oppression towards the close of his reign, so that Rehoboam had no easy task before him. All was ripe for revolt.

1. National strength is impossible without national unity. Clans must lose their jealousies if they would become a strong people. The severance of the rich from the poor, the hostility between capital and labour, the disaffection of any section of the people must be a source of weakness, a sign of decadence.

2. The Church’s power is sapped by sectarian hostility. There may be diversity in modes of work and worship, but amongst all Christians should be unity of spirit. “There are diversities of operations, but the same spirit.” Each tribe may march through the wilderness with its own banner, but all must find their one centre in the Divine presence, and seek their one Canaan as a laud of rest. Isaiah foretells the day when “Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim” (1Ki 11:13).

II. HEAVY TAXATION. It affected the people’s wealth, and still more painfully their personal labour. A more foolish step than that which Rehoboam took could scarcely be imagined. He sent to appease the people “Adoram, who was over the tribute;” the very man who represented the oppression they resented! Quem Dens vult perdere, prius dementat. Show how extravagance, disregard of the rights of others, unjust demands, carelessness of the interests of dependants, lead to disasterin homes, in business, in national and ecclesiastical affairs. Illustrate this from history; the decline and fall of the Roman Empire; the dissolution of the formerly vast dependencies of Spain, etc. So if a Church demands too much, as Rome does, she loses all. The intelligent men of Roman Catholic countries are sceptics.

III. RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENCE. That this existed is evident from the ease with which Solomon set up the worship of Ashtoreth, Milcom, and Chemosh; and from the fact that Jeroboam, directly after the revolt, erected the calves at Bethel and Daniel J.D. Michaelis and others have sought to justify the people in their rebellion, but there can be no doubt that so far as they were concerned the revolt was criminal Neither in this nor in any other act of man does higher causality affect the morality of an act. They were anxious about the decrease of taxation, but not about the removal of idolatry. To them it mattered little whether Jehovah were worshipped or not. But it was to represent Him, to fulfil His purpose, to preserve His truth, that the kingdom existed. Indifference to God is destructive of the stability of human hopes, of the kingliness of human character, of the peace and security of human kingdoms. Christ has come into the world to arouse it from indifference, that all men may go out to greet Him as “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” If you lose the kingdom of heaven it is because, like Rehoboam, you throw it away. The lost opportunity never came to him again. He was forbidden to try to recover by force what he sacrificed by folly (verse 24). Over him and over many a man the lament may be heard,” Oh that thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from thine eyes.”A.R.

HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART

1Ki 12:1-20

The accomplishment of the predicted judgment.

I. DANGERS OFTEN COME DISGUISED.

1. It was a time of joyous expectation. Nothing betokened the nearness of rebellion and disaster. All Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. There was no dispute about the succession, and no unwillingness to own the sway of the house of David. All was hopeful. Danger may lurk in joy like a venomous insect in a flower.

2. The people’s request was reasonable. Rehoboam could shield himself under no plea of Divine right. David was appointed to shepherd Israel, and the people had a right to protest against their burdens.

3. Their demand seems to have been urged with moderation. There was as yet no determination to rebel. The issue lay with the king. It was to bear the stamp of his mind as well as theirs. There are moments that face us with a sudden demand to manifest the spirit that is in us and to make or mar our future. Should the demand come to thee today, what mark would be left, what work would be done?

II. A DANGER WISELY MET.

1. The importance of the juncture was felt and owned. He took time for consideration. A good decision is nothing the worse of a calm review: a bad one needs it.

2. He sought counsel. We are helped by the light of others’ judgment, but above all we need the direction of God.

III. THE BEGINNING OF DISASTER.

1. A grave defect. Among all that is said of these three days there is no mention of his inquiring of the Lord, or lifting up one cry for guidance. There is pride and passion in us which only God can subdue: these retained are worse than all our foes; they can only harm us through the enemies we harbour within our breast.

2. The counsels of wisdom are rejected (1Ki 12:7, 1Ki 12:8).

3. The counsels of folly accepted (1Ki 12:8-11). He was seeking for the reflection of his own proud, vengeful thought, and he now found it in the advice of those who were like minded. What we need is not the strengthening of our own judgment, but its correction by the utterance of love and righteousness and truth.

IV. FOLLY‘S HARVEST.

1. The shame of rejection and desertion (1Ki 12:16).

2. His last attempt to assert his authority defeated (1Ki 12:18).

3. His ignominious flight. He who might have won a kingdom has to flee for his life.

4. The separation of the ten tribes completed (1Ki 12:19, 1Ki 12:20). If Rehoboam had fled from the evil which was in himself, he would not have required to flee from his people. We give birth to the terrors which pursue us. There is but one flight possible from loss and deaththe flight from sin.U.

1Ki 12:21-33

I. AN ERROR THAT COULD NOT BE REPAIRED (1Ki 12:21-24). Rehoboam had zeal and strength behind him in his attempt to bring back the tribes by force. One hundred and eighty thousand men responded to his call; but all were dispersed at the lifting up of God’s hand. The attempt was forbidden,

1. Because of the ties of kindred. These were forgotten by Rehoboam when he threatened the people with a heavier yoke. Tyranny is possible only in the denial of the brotherhood of man. It was forgotten now as he gathered his hosts together. Wars are impossible in the recognition of the brotherhood of man. This is God’s word to the nations, to England as to the rest: “Ye shall not fight against your brethren.”

2. Because the loss was of God. “This thing is from Me.” These two thoughts assuage anger and beget repentance; they who are against us are our brethren, and the blow is from our Father’s hand. Our mistakes are permitted, and we eat their bitter fruit in God’s righteous judgment. Keep the way of love and lowly dependence on God. Every other is full of mistake and irreparable loss.

II. THE BLINDNESS OF WORLDLY POLICY (1Ki 12:25-33). Judged from a merely human standpoint, Jeroboam showed commendable foresight, and took effectual precautions against a great and possible danger. Yet he did not look far enough or high enough. The range of his vision did not embrace the mightiest of all forces. It shut out God, and every step he took ensured the destruction of the power he sought to guard,

1. His fear was unbelief. There did seem to be a danger in the recourse of the tribes to Jerusalem, but he had God’s promise that he would build him a sure house if he would do that which was right in God’s sight (1Ki 11:38). Do not our fears go right in the face of the promises of God?

2. It was base forgetfulness of God’s mercy. The Lord had fulfilled part of what He had said. The very circumstances in which the fear arose (the possession of the kingdom) were thus its answer. Our fears not only deny God’s promises, but also the testimony of the past. Unbelief and ingratitude are the first steps in the path of sin (Rom 1:21).

3. His defiance of God. When unbelief has shut Him out of the heart, His commandments are lightly esteemed. To suit the exigencies of state, God’s ordinances were overturned, other holy places were set up, the commandment against image worship broken, the priesthood and the feast time changed. Jeroboam’s sin lives still in our statecraft, in the conduct of our business, etc. God’s purpose regarding us and the world is nothing! His commandments are the only things that with safety can be disregarded!

4. His misdirected ingenuity. He cleverly takes advantage

(1) of the jealousy of the tribes. Why should Jerusalem be the only holy place, or Levi the one servant of God?

(2) He only repeats the sin, and quotes the words, of Aaron, and the fathers (Exo 32:4).

(3) He uses places already consecrated, Bethel by Jacob’s vision and altar, and Dan, the shrine of Micah’s image (Jdg 18:30).

(4) He hides zeal for his own safety under the plea of care for the people’s convenience (verse 28). Misused ability cannot shield[ from God’s judgment. In every step he took he was the more surely sealing his own doom, and ensuring the final extinction of his people. “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”U.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Ki 12:1. Rehoboam went to Shechem Shechem stood not only in the centre of the kingdom of Israel, but in the middle of the tribe of Ephraim, wherein was the greater number of mal-contents. It was, therefore, very probably, by the management of Jeroboam, or some of his friends who durst not, perhaps, venture themselves at Jerusalem, that this city was made choice of as a place of general convention; because they might more securely propose their grievances, which they were resolved to do, and use a greater freedom of speech than they could at Jerusalem, where the family of David was more powerful, more numerous, and better supported. See Calmet and Poole.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

SECOND PERIOD. (975 TO 722 B.C.)
THE DIVIDED MONARCHY IN JUDAH AND ISRAEL

(1Ki 12:1-17)

FIRST EPOCH

From The Division Of The Kingdom Until The Reign Of Ahab

(1Ki 12:1 to 1Ki 16:34)

FIRST SECTION

The Division Of The Kingdom
(1 Kings 12)

A.The renunciation of the house of David by the ten tribes

1Ki 12:1-24 (2Ch 10:1 to 2Ch 11:4.)

1And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem tomake him king. 2And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it,1 (for he was fled from the presence of kingSolomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;2) 3that they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam,saying, 4Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us,lighter, and we will serve thee. 5And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed.

6And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answerthis people? 7And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak goodwords to them, then they will be thy servants for e1 Kings 1Ki 12:8 But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with theyoung men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: 9and he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? 10And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thousay unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my fathers loins. 11And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.3

12So Jeroboam4 and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as theking had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. 13And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old mens counsel that they gavehim; 14and spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastisedyou with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. 15Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord [Jehovah], that he might perform his saying, which the Lord [Jehovah] spake by Ahijah the Shiloniteunto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 16So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your5 tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their17tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah,Rehoboam reigned over them. 18Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram,6 who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.19So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.

20And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah7only. 21And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and fourscore8 thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdomagain to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. 22But the word of God9 cameunto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, 23Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and tothe remnant of the people, saying, 24Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah].10

Exegetical and Critical

1Ki 12:1. And Rehoboam went to Shechem. The city of Shechem was about eighteen hours distance north of Jerusalem, and lay at the foot of Mount Gerizim, in the mountain range of Ephraim (Jdg 9:7). It is often mentioned in the history of the Patriarchs (Gen 12:6; Gen 33:18; Gen 34:2; Gen 37:12), and Joshua had intended it to be a free Levite city. He likewise gathered all the tribes together there, and held that important diet in which all the people pledged themselves to the observance of Jehovahs covenant (Jos 20:7; Jos 24:1; Jos 24:25). In the time of the Judges, Abimelech made Shechem the capital of his kingdom (Judges 9.); he destroyed it, indeed, but it was soon rebuilt, and continued to be one of the chief cities of the northern part. 1Ki 12:1 gives us the reason why Rehoboam left Jerusalem, where he had been made king, and went to Shechem; for all Israel were come to Shechem. By we are not to understand all the twelve tribes (Ewald), but only ten, as 1Ki 12:12; 1Ki 12:18; 1Ki 12:20 clearly show; under David even those tribes had claimed the name of the entire people (2Sa 2:9-10; 2Sa 2:17; 2Sa 2:28). is not the imperfect but the pluperfect, for the ten tribes did not go to Shechem because the king was there but just the reverse: because () they had gone to Shechem, the king went thither. He therefore did not call them together there, but they, i. e., their elders, judges, and representatives, had assembled in this old Ephraimitic capital, as they had once done in Joshuas time (Jos 24:1; cf. 2Sa 5:1; 1Ki 5:3), and this induced the king to journey to Shechem. Their design in meeting was to make him king, i. e., to recognize him as king, as Judah had done, though he had already ascended the throne; to pay him homage, on the condition, however, that he would agree to their wishes and demands. This was why they did not assemble in Jerusalem, as they were in reality bound to do, and as they had done to David when they went to Hebron, the place of Davids residence, to do him homage (2Sa 5:1 sq.), but in Shechem. It was a a significant hint, if Rehoboam had properly understood it (Ewald). It is very improbable that they summoned him to their assembly, as they did Jeroboam; he seems to have gone unsummoned with his whole retinue (1Ki 12:6; 1Ki 12:8). That the 10 tribes had assembled to assert their ancient right of choice (Gramberg) is an entire mistake. For there is no mention anywhere of such a right; and the text does not say they went to Shechem to choose a king, but to make himRehoboamking, i. e., to confirm him as such.

1Ki 12:2-3. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam heard of it, &c. 1Ki 12:2. If we retain the reading we must, like Maurer, take 1Ki 12:2 to be properly the antecedent sentence, and begin the conclusion with , 1Ki 12:3, and translate like De Wette: When Jeroboam heard of it (he was still in Egypt, whither he had fled from Solomon the king, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, and they sent and called him), then Jeroboam and the whole assembly came, and they spake to Rehoboam. Apart from the crude form of this sentence, the words following he was still in Egypt, namely, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, appear to be quite superfluous; we must in this case supply, after he had returned from Egypt, before then Jeroboam came; and, finally, it would follow that the people assembled at Shechem sent messengers thence to Egypt to bring back Jeroboam, which is not to be supposed, because the journey there and back required several weeks, and all Israel would have been compelled to wait during this time, without accomplishing anything, in Shechem, for Jeroboams arrival. But all these difficulties fall away if we read, like 2Ch 10:2, , i. e., and Jeroboam returned from Egypt. According to this, the case was simply so: On the news of Solomons death Jeroboam returned from Egypt to his tribe-land Ephraim, and, we are to imply, to his native place Zereda (1Ki 11:26), or, as the Sept. says, Sarira, which could not have been very far distant from Shechem. They sent thither for him; he came, and took the lead in the negotiations which those assembled at Shechem made with Rehoboam. The Vulgate also translates 1Ki 12:2 : At vero Jeroboam, cum adhuc esset in gypto profugus a facie regis Salomonis, audita morte ejus reversus est de gypto. Miseruntque et vocaverunt eum; venit ergo Jeroboam et, etc. The [Vatican] Sept., which places this verse in 1Ki 11:43, translates: . It is easy to see what thoughts those who composed this Assembly were revolving when, before Rehoboams arrival, they called the man who had lifted up his hand against Solomon, and was just returned from Egypt, and made him their leader and speech-maker to Rehoboam. Rehoboam having come to them, instead of they to him at Jerusalem, only made them bolder. From the long sentence which the Sept. places after 1Ki 12:24 we can glean nothing certain regarding Jeroboam and his conduct after he returned from Egypt; everything is mixed together and the different personages confused; for instance, Jeroboam is confounded with Hadad the Edomite, and the prophet Ahijah with the prophet Semaiah; Jeroboams mother is called , &c. Keil is right in denying all historical value to this sentence, out of which Thenius strives to complete the story.

1Ki 12:4-5. Thy father made our yoke grievous, &c. 1Ki 12:4. The word does not mean every kind of heavy load, but the yoke laid on the neck of beasts designed for labor (Num 19:2; Deu 21:3; 1Sa 6:7); it is the yoke of labor, and, as such, the symbol of servile work (Deu 28:48; Lev 26:13; Jer 27:8; Jer 27:11); it is, for this reason, parallel with here. The grievance, therefore, is nothingit is well to notice thisbut the levy-work for Solomons public buildings, and we see this plainly enough by 1Ki 12:11; 1Ki 12:14, where Rehoboams answer is recorded. That the complaint was well founded, that Solomon had really exacted too heavy servile work from his people, as the Egyptian king once did in Moses time (Ex. 11:1, 23), is generally taken for granted, although the complaint comes from the mouths of a number of people who were excited with thoughts of secession, and who were jealous of Judah. At their head stood a man, too, who had already tried to raise an insurrection, and had not renounced his ambitious plans in exile. Complaint from the mouths of such cannot be taken as testimony, nor can it ever weigh under such circumstances, except joined to other and purely historical evidence. We have none such, however. Solomon was not the first to adopt the measure of a conscription for working at the public buildings as well as for war-service. This was customary throughout the ancient East. Everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon, the immense buildings were raised, not by paid workmen, but by conscriptions. There were, for instance, the 360,000 men who worked twenty years at one pyramid (see above on 1Ki 5:13). Even David had, among his five chief officers, one who was specially over the tribute (2Sa 20:24), which was then a standing regulation. We find the tribute brought into system in Solomons time, and the people were, as contrasted with conquered foreigners, treated with gentle consideration (chaps. 1Ki 5:13 sq.;1Ki 9:20 sq.). Nowhere is the voice of complaint heard about it, and our author is far from representing Solomons conduct as hard and blameworthy, but rather relates it to his praise. As the tribute-work was distributed by turns amongst all Israel, Ephraim or the ten tribes received no more proportionately than the two remaining tribes, and there is not the most indirect allusion anywhere that Solomon exacted more from the Ephraimites than from the others. For this reason, the complaint of the yoke being grievous, which they alone make, seems to be only a welcome excuse suggested to them by their former superintendent Jeroboam. The real motive came to light later (1Ki 12:16). If we cannot admit the complaint of too hard tribute-work to be well founded, still less have we any right to add other things to the complaint of which it makes no mention. The grievous yoke and heavy service are not generally taken to mean, as the plain expressions do, the tribute-work alone, but all burdens laid on the people, i. e., the taxes and produce which they had to pay and deliver; not their powers of labor alone, but their capacity of paying taxes, are thought to have been too much tested by Solomon (De Wette, Ewald, Eisenlohr). Discontent grew with the oppression of the people by ever new burdens and tributes, that were quite contrary to the original freedom of the community (Diestel); the monarchy had become a despotism, a sultanate (Duncker), and the speakers for the people had therefore laid before Rehoboam the terms of capitulation, which were to lighten the universal oppression under which Israel had sighed since Solomons reign began (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 311). This view, almost universally current, stands in direct contradiction with the historical evidence. As to the taxes and deliveries, they are not once mentioned in the complaint, as we have already said; neither is the poverty or other misery resulting from them once named anywhere. It is difficult to conceive how any one can appeal to such places as 1Ki 10:25 (De Wette), for there is no mention there of what the people brought, but of the presents which strangers brought the king. Ewald himself admits that there is no evidence that there was an income tax, and it by no means appears, as Winer supposes, from 1Ki 10:15, that custom duties had been introduced. There is still less historical proof of the universal oppression of the people under Solomon. All that our author relates, from chap. 2. to 10., is to show the unwonted prosperity and splendor of Solomons kingdom; its immense wealth, its peaceful condition, and its thriving commerce are described in the strongest terms, and just by those passages which have been quoted to prove the heaviness of the taxation and the supposed oppression, is it specially manifest how happy and peaceful the people were under Solomons reign (1Ki 4:20; 1Ki 4:25; cf. 1Ki 8:66), so that the prophets took the kingdom of Solomon as a type of the Messiahs (see above). Even after chap. 11, in which Solomons fall is recorded, there is nothing to show that Israel sighed under universal oppression; and when the people as well as king became degenerate in the latter part of his reign, it was rather in consequence of too great prosperity and luxury than of great burdens and poverty. Finally, Solomon is threatened, in both addresses of the prophet Ahijah (1Ki 11:11; 1Ki 11:31 sq.), with the partition of his kingdom, not because he had oppressed the people with servile labor and heavy taxations, but solely because he had suffered his strange wives to persuade him to introduce idolatrous forms of worship. It would have been a just and well-founded complaint had they alleged that Solomon had broken the supreme command in the fundamental law of Israel by the toleration of idol-worship, and had thus undermined the strength of the kingdom. But the complainants are wholly silent on this, and the sequel shows how little they or their speaker Jeroboam cared for the observance of that fundamental law.

1Ki 12:6-14. Rehoboam consulted, &c. 1Ki 12:6. The are not old people, but the elders (senators) who constituted the administration-college of Solomon [or council] (1Ki 4:2-6). Rehoboam had retained them as such, but had not, as Thenius thinks, placed them on the retired list, for in that case he would not have taken them with him to Shechem, and he certainly would not have heard their counsel before that of the young men. The expression, that stood before Solomon, shows that they were in immediate attendance on the king. In their advice, 1Ki 12:7, stands next to , and at the beginning, over against at the conclusion; and as is strengthened by the immediately following , we have no right to weaken it, and to take it in another sense from that stands opposite to it at the conclusion; this is generally done, and is translated complaisant, but , on the contrary, is translated subject. The elders not only advised the king to compromise, but that he should serve the people at least this day, and assured him that the people would then be his servants for ever; they proposed that he should for the present moment reverse the existing relation: the king was to be servant and yield to the will of the people, in the expectation that the people would afterwards be his servants. We can easily imagine that such a proposal (which would not perhaps have succeeded) was not very agreeable to the rash and imperious young king, in whose veins Ammonite blood flowed (1Ki 14:21). The word , 1Ki 12:8, is used for a child at any age from its birth (Exo 2:3; Exo 2:6-7) to youth; are not, therefore, real counsellors, like the , but young people who were in attendance upon the king (stood before him). The words, that were grown up with him, show that Rehoboam was himself still (cf. 2Ch 13:7). The proverbial expression 1Ki 12:10, my little finger, &c., means, I am much mightier than Solomon; his power was as the little finger to the body, compared with mine; if my father had power to compel you, I have still more. From this general way of speaking they proceed in 1Ki 12:11 to allude to the particular grievance of the forced labor. The yoke and whips belong together, and are the signs of laboring servants (Ecclesiasticus 30:26 or Sir 33:27). The king was to use instead of the whips for servants the thorn-whip used for criminals alone, and which was called scorpio by the Romans (Isidor. Origg. v. 27, 1 Kings 18 : Virga. si est aculeata, scorpio vocatur, quia arcuato vulnere in corpus infigitur). The meaning is, my father used ordinary means to keep you at work, but I will do it with extraordinary and severer means. The answer says as little of taxes as the complaint itself; it only refers to the enforced work, and it does not even admit that Solomon exacted too much, but it is only now proposed to do so. The pleasure with which Rehoboam accepted this advice is very indicative of his disposition.

1Ki 12:15-17. The cause was from the Lord. 1Ki 12:15. Inasmuch as the inconceivably foolish and perverse resolve of Rehoboam carried with it the irremediable division of the people and kingdom, the verse asserts it to be a course of things ( from ) from Jehovah; not that Rehoboam was forced unwillingly to speak so, but in the same sense in which it is said of Pharaoh (Exo 14:4; Rom 9:17) and of Judas (Mat 26:25). Witsius (Decaphyl. i. 3) says: Ipsa Rehabeami stolida imprudentia consilio Dei inservivit, ut quod accidit etiam merito accidisse videtur. We find here an application of the proverb: Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Every case of a hardened heart is a righteous judgment of God.

1Ki 12:16-17. What portion have we, &c. 1Ki 12:16. This was the old Ephraimite watchword of rebellion, of which Sheba availed himself against the house of David (2Sa 20:1). The first member of the sentence means this, What concern have we about David and his house, when the question is who shall be king over us? We have no fellowship with each other (Deu 10:9). Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse is not equal to we can hope for and expect nothing from him; but, we do not belong to him, as Judah, by race-derivation. In the son of Jesse there is an allusion to Davids humbler descent, just as in the New Testament to one carpenters son (Mat 13:55). To your tents, O Israel! is a proverbial call which originated in the time of the march through the wilderness, where the camp was arranged according to the tribes. Let every one return to his tribe and his home, without acknowledging Rehoboam. Now see to thine own house, i.e., see how you can reign over your own tribe in the future; you have no right to us any more. In this whole cry the deeply rooted dislike to Davids royal house is strongly expressed, and we can perceive a more potent cause for the partition than the alleged oppression of Solomon (Keil). 1Ki 12:17 means that only those individuals belonging to the ten tribes remained under Rehoboam who were settled in Judah or had gone to settle there (2Ch 11:3). The verse does not mean, then: the tribe of Judah chose Rehoboam, who was one of them, to be king (Ewald); for Judah had already acknowledged him such before he went to Shechem.

1Ki 12:18-19. Adoram, who was over the tribute, &c. 1Ki 12:18. No doubt the same who is called Adoniram in the list of Solomons chief officers (chap 1Ki 4:6), as also the Sept., Syr., and Arab. call him in this passage. Thenius thinks he was the son of Adoram, the chief of the tribute officers, who is mentioned in the lists of Davids officials (2Sa 20:24). If he was identical with this person he must certainly have been about eighty years of age, since David could not have given the office in question to quite a young man, and Solomon reigned forty years. It is evident that Rehoboam sent him to treat with the rebels, and to appease them, as Josephus expressly says. As the question was about lightening the tribute work, the chief officer over the tribute seems to have been selected by Rehoboam as the fittest person to mediate; probably Adoram was one of the elders who gave the advice to yield. But the people were highly incensed at the sight of this officer, and instead of listening to him, in their rage they stoned him. Bertheau has no grounds for his supposition that he came with an armed force (however small) to force the rebels to submission. For: unto this day, see on 1Ki 8:8; 1Ki 9:21.

1Ki 12:20-21. And it came to pass when all Israel heard, &c. 1Ki 12:20 closes the narrative, 1Ki 12:1-19, and is also the connecting link with the following 1Ki 12:21-24. The independence of the ten tribes had been achieved by their representatives in Shechem, who now returned to their different tribe-territories (end of 1Ki 12:16), and announced to all Israel what had happened, especially also the part that Jeroboam, just arrived from Egypt, had acted there. The latter, no doubt, also returned to his native place after the event. But when a king was to be chosen for the rebels he was called back and made king. This exasperated Rehoboam to make war on Israel. We cannot be surprised at the number he brought into the field, as the tribe of Judah alone had 500,000 men of war in the census that David took (2Sa 24:9).

1Ki 12:22-24. But the word of the Lord came, &c. 1Ki 12:22. The prophet Shemaiah did not belong to the tribe of Ephraim, like Ahijah (1Ki 11:29), but doubtless to Judah, and from the present passage as well as from 2Ch 12:5, it seems that he must have lived in Jerusalem. As here, so also he had great influence through his preaching, when king Shishak came from Egypt to war against Rehoboam; he also wrote a history of Rehoboam (2Ch 12:5-8; 2Ch 12:15). The thing is from me, 1Ki 12:24. This prophet of Judah, as well as the Ephraimite prophet, declares the separation of the ten tribes to be a divine dispensation, which, humiliating and painful as it was to the house of David and Judah, might not be opposed by force of arms; for the separated tribes were still brethren. Thus he recognizes a higher bond of union in spite of all separation, and wishes that union held intact. The king and army follow his advice; they probably saw that a war with the numerically greater and just now bitterly excited ten tribes would bring them into a worse condition still.

Historical and Ethical

1. The rebellion of the ten tribes against Davids house, and the consequent partition of the kingdom, was the most important and pregnant event in the history of Israel since it became an independent State. The divisions that took place in the time of the judges were only temporary, but this lasted for hundreds of years, and only terminated with the fall of both the separated kingdoms. An event that formed such an epoch, and had such a marked influence on sacred history, cannot possibly be traced to one fact alone, or to the defiant and thoughtless answer of Rehoboam; it must have been produced by deeper and more general causes, lying in the character of the people and in the mutual relation of the tribes. The tribe of Judah and the double one of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh, Jos 17:17), whose progenitors were especially favored in the blessing (Gen 49:8-12; Gen 49:22-25), were from the beginning the most numerous, and therefore the most powerful, of all the twelve tribes. Judah numbered seventy-six thousand and five hundred before the entrance into Canaan; the double tribe of Joseph numbered eighty-five thousand and two hundred men (Num 26:22; Num 26:28; Num 26:34; Num 26:37); this tribe claimed the largest territory at the division of the land (Jos 17:14 sq.; 1Ch 5:1) on account of its number, and because it had inherited Reubens birth-right. But the sceptre was promised to Judah, and the leaders in the march through the desert as well as in the conquest of Canaan headed that tribe (1Ch 5:2; Num 2:3; Num 10:14; Jdg 1:2; Jdg 20:18); both tribes were warlike (Jdg 1:4; Jdg 1:10; Jdg 8:1 sq.; 1Ki 12:1 sq.; Psa 78:9). In consequence of these relations, each tribe regarded itself as equal in powers with the other tribes, but also as evenly matched with each other. But added to this there was a difference in the character and pursuits of the tribes; whilst Judah was the leader and head of the theocracy and the covenant, therefore of higher religious life (Gen 49:10; Psa 60:9; Psa 78:67 sq.; Psa 114:1-2), Ephraim represented the nature-side of the peoples life; and the consciousness of natural, material strength and earthly abundance appears with it in the foreground (Gen 49:22 sq.; Deu 33:13; Psa 78:9 sq.). There was, therefore, in the latter more receptivity for nature-religion, and a tendency to independence of any other tribe, and especially of one not entirely its equal. There was, then, the germ of a dualism very early in the nation, and this germ grew more and more in the distracted times of the Judges, asserting itself sometimes with more, sometimes with less energy. After Sauls death the two chief tribes formally separated under different kings (2Sa 2:4-11); this, however, only lasted seven years and a half, after which the revolted tribes went over to the king of Judah, i.e., David (2Sa 5:1 sq.). But the more the power and authority of Judah increased under David and Solomon, so much the more did the old jealousy and love of independence grow in Ephraim; the tribute-labors, and especially the structures which served to strengthen the dominant authority of Judah which Solomon had achieved by Ephraimites, were calculated especially to increase those feelings. Jeroboams attempt to raise an insurrection miscarried, but the desire for independence was not extinguished thereby. It broke out again the more violently after Solomons death, as there was hope of getting rid of Rebohoam more easily, who did not in the least resemble his father. The great event of the partition of the kingdom had its roots in a primitive characteristic of the tribe, which characteristic had existed over four hundred years, and now broke out at last with violence, creating a double State. Rehoboams answer was only the spark which fell into the powder magazine. The recent historical criticism admits the agency of the Ephraimite character in the revolt, but finds the especial and chief cause in the essential nature of the kingdom. Ewald is of this opinion (Gesch. des V. Isr. III. s. 393 sq.). The monarchy had, in its very nature, a tendency to extend its power further and further, and to restrict every other power in the nation more and more, or else to absorb it. It reached a very high stage in Solomons time, but it was ever growing, and it made more and more severe exactions upon the people in labor and taxation. A further strengthening and one-sided growth of the monarchy was held by the best men in Israel to be ruinous and dangerous to the ancient freedom of the people. There might have been, indeed, a way of reconciling the claims of the monarchy and of the nation without a revolution, i.e., having what is now called a constitution drawn up, which, when well devised, is the safe-guard of the best modern Christian nations. But there was no such remedy at hand; the heads of the tribes only assembled when a new king was to be declared. All the best of the people, and particularly the prophets, had agreed that the government could not continue as it was at the close of Solomons life. As the prophets had founded the kingdom, and advanced it so much by the elevation of Davids house over that of Saul, they now expected furtherance by another change of dynasty; impressed by their counsel, it was forthwith achieved in consequence of the voice of the people and the folly of Rehoboam, &c., &c. This whole mode of explanation, already adopted here and there, rests on the utterly unproved supposition that Solomons government constantly grew more absolute and despotic, till, at last, it seriously threatened the liberty of the people. We have not the slightest historical proof of this. Where is it said that Soloman oppressed his people, in every way, by taxation and tribute-labor? Where is it said that the prophets believed the liberties of the people to be threatened, and that they announced this publicly? How happens it that Solomon, who advanced his realm to a degree of prosperity it never before and never again enjoyed, is made to be a despot and oppressor? Just when the text has been treating exclusively of the tribute to the splendid court, it says: Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry, &c.; Judah dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, from Dan to Beer-Sheba, all the days of Solomon (1Ki 4:20; 1Ki 4:25). That he demanded too much of this tribute-labor, which was customary among all ancient nations, and had been exacted before his time, there is no other evidence than the complaint of the angry revolutionary assembly of Ephraimites at Shechem, and this cannot be regarded as impartial and historical testimony. So little did Solomon interfere with the liberty of his people, that there was an unprecedented commerce with all the neighboring nations in his reign; he even allowed freedom of worshipallowed too much rather than too little liberty. This and not despotism was what the prophets apprehended danger from. There is not in the whole history of Solomon a single act that can be called despotic or tyrannical, like those of later kings, for instance, Ahab or Jehu; and yet the former is said to have ruled with such intolerable severity that the prophets and the best among the people were compelled to think of a change of government. Of all kingdoms, that of Israel should be the last to be judged from a modern political point of view. The theocratic constitution was not revoked when the human monarchy began: Jehovah continued to be the true king of Israel, and the human king was the servant of Jehovah; as such he had to do Jehovahs will, not his own. There was, therefore, no such thing as absolutism, which we are told clung to this monarchy by virtue of its nature. But we cannot comprehend how any should think that the best remedy against the supposed despotism of Solomon would have been a representative government, after the pattern of the constitutions of our nineteenth century.

2. The revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David (1Ki 12:19) is often represented as justifiable. J. D. Michaelis (Mos. Recht I. 55) saw nothing more in it than a new capitulation of a people still free; De Wette (Beitrge I. s. 129) went further, and asserted that, according to 1 Kings 12. these tribes were fully justified in what they did; they demanded fair concessions, and there is only Rehoboams folly to be blamed. Duncker says (Gesch. des Alt. s. 402), the Israelites remembered their right to choose and anoint the king. But we find nothing said anywhere of such a national right: the law for kings (Deu 17:14 sq.) says nothing of it; it recognizes no conditions of election; and the history mentions no king except Jeroboam (1Ki 12:20), either in Judah or Israel, who was elected by the free choice of the people. The monarchy was hereditary in Judah, and continued in Davids house till the dissolution of the kingdom; in Israel, also, the son succeeded the father, or usurpers arose who gained the throne by force; but the people never once chose the king. In the present instance, Ephraim with its confederates had no right, certainly, to reject a king who was such by birth, and to choose another by themselves alone, without Judah. Ephraim had solemnly acknowledged the brotherhood of all the twelve tribes, and had willingly submitted to David (2Sa 5:1 sq.); and all the tribes had acknowledged Solomon to be, in right of being Davids son, the true king of Judah and Israel (1Ki 4:20; 1Ki 5:5). At the great festival of the dedication they had all gathered around Solomon, who announced to them the divine promise that Davids house should never want a man to sit upon the throne of David (1Ki 8:1; 1Ki 8:24-25); they united together in a solemn bond, by a common thanksgiving sacrifice to Jehovah at the temple, which was the central point, as it were, of the kingdom, and this bond joined them all together as well as with Davids house; as the king blessed them, so, also, they blessed him (1 Kings 6:6268). Solomons son was therefore the rightful heir of the throne for all the tribes, and none had a right to revolt from him. Even granted that Solomon had given his subjects cause of complaint, by exacting too much tribute-labor in the latter part of his reign, yet this did not justify any one of the tribes in breaking the bond of national union, and severing themselves from the hereditary dynasty, especially, too, as Rehoboam had not as yet shown in acts what his government would be. The revolt of the ten tribes was not brought about first by his foolish wilful answer, but the latter only offered them a wished for opportunity to carry out their already purposed, revolt (Keil). Hence they did not want to treat, but gave free vent to their hatred, and murdered the innocent ambassador of the king. The division can therefore be regarded as nothing else than a revolutionary act, which cannot by any means be excused, much less justified. A right of resistance lies only in cases where the chief ruler arbitrarily violates the fundamental law upon which the material and also the spiritual and moral existence of a people rests. But the rebellion is then the act of the government itself, and not of the subjects. But single grievances, even if real, can never justify revolt from lawful authority (especially when only brought forward by a part of the nation) or form sufficient ground for rebellion and deeds of violence (cf. Rothe, Theol. Ethik III. s. 977 sq.). Solomon had certainly attacked and undermined the fundamental law of Israel, by permitting and favoring idolatry, but the ten tribes made no complaint of this, but solely of the alleged excess of tribute-labor, which Judah and Benjamin shared with them, but which they did not bring forward as a grievance.

3. That Rehoboam returned an answer to the people, with which the storm that had threatened the house of David burst forth, is emphatically said (1Ki 12:15) to have been from the Lord; and the prophecy of Ahijah (1Ki 11:11; 1Ki 11:31) was thereby fulfilled. At the same time the prophet Shemaiah warns them not to make war on the seceders, saying, this thing is from the Lord. This does not justify the conduct of the ten tribes any more than that of Rehoboam, but intimates indeed that the partition of the kingdom determined on in the counsels of God happened in such a way as to make it evident that it was the fault of Rehoboam. According to the word of Ahijah the partition appeared to have a double design: to afflict the seed of David, but not forever (1Ki 11:39), to be as such a chastisement (2Sa 7:14); and also to afford to the inborn instinct of Ephraim for independence the opportunity of free development, yet on the indispensable condition of unchanging fidelity to the fundamental law that David had held; the express restriction was added, that Davids seed was not to be afflicted forever. We already remarked above (Hist. and Ethic. 5, on 1Ki 11:14-43) that such a temporary division of the kingdom was not inconsistent with the higher unity of the divine monarchy. But as neither of the kingdoms adhered to that higher unity, Ephraim forsaking the law continually from the beginning, and Judah only sometimes faithful, the division became, through the guilt of both kingdoms, the germ of their destruction (Mat 12:25). Because the higher unity was forsaken, the history of the divided kingdom is nothing but a slow process of dissolution of the human monarchy in Israel, and with it of the outward, earthly kingdom, limited by natural race and to a given land. That unity was designed, in the divine counsels, to be an eternal heavenly kingdom, an inward kingdom of God, to embrace all nations, a in which Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim (Isa 11:13); in which they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all, but shall be one nation, and one king shall be king to them all (Eze 37:15-22). The fact that the partition of the kingdom, this beginning of its end, immediately followed its culmination of earthly dominion under David and Solomon, shows how frail and perishable it was; the more it approached its dissolution, the more ardent became the longing for an enduring and eternal kingdom, the more definite and significant prophecy became. Well may Witsius exclaim, referring to the above-mentioned sentence in 1Ki 12:15 : O sapientia et occulti miranda potentia fati! qu res omnes ita dirigit et flectit, ut tamen ipsi illuc ivisse videamur, et consiliis fatisque nostris gradum nobis struamus ad fatalem illum lapsum sive adscensum. The apostles exclamation about the ways and judgments of God, though universally applicable, is so especially here (Rom 11:33).

4. In the conduct of the various important personages concerned in bringing about the partition of the kingdom, all the sins and weaknesses appear which lie at the bottom of all such events; so that we behold, in this history, a reflection of every revolution in its nature and course, and it may serve as a picture of future ones in every age (cf. especially the striking treatise of Vilmar, Die Theilung des Davidsreichs. Pastoral-theol. Bltter, 1861, s. 177 bis 193), which we cited above on 1Ki 11:4. A complete lack of religious feeling and manner is first observable in these two opposite parties; both move upon a purely outward, secular, and political-worldly soil, though in Israel the national and religious consciousness coincide principally. There had been hitherto no assembly of the whole people or of their representatives, for weighty affairs, in which the religious element had failed. When Joshua called the elders together in Shechem, before his end, they presented themselves before God (Jos 24:1 sq.). When Samuel did the same at Mizpeh, he said to them, present yourselves before the Lord (1Sa 10:19). When all the tribes came to David in Hebron, after Ish-bosheths death, and acknowledged him as king over all Israel, they call to mind Jehovahs word, and David made a league with them before the Lord (2Sa 5:1-3). When Solomon assembled all the heads of the tribes and the elders at the dedication, the ceremony not only began with divine worship, but ended by the king and all Israel with him offering sacrifice before the Lord (1Ki 8:1; 1Ki 8:5; 1Ki 8:62). In the present instance, however, nothing was done before the Lord, but everything was done without Him. No one, neither one of the tribe-heads nor Jeroboam nor Rehoboam nor his counsellors and companions, inquire after Him. No one names Him. That He is their true sovereign before whom they must all bow does not occur to them. They think only which of the two parties should rule the other. This conduct reveals a state of things which always and everywhere precedes revolutions; which are made ready inevitably when, in a nation and kingdom, high and low alike ask no longer for the holy and living God, and where infidelity and indifference have entered. The breaking of religious ties brings with it, sooner or later, that of the State also; hence we generally find, in the present day, that those who plan the overthrow of the government, as a rule, seek also to undermine the church foundations.When we look particularly at the conduct of the people of the ten tribes we see that they had all forgotten the great benefits and blessing they had received through the house of David, especially during the forty years of Solomons prosperous reign; they forgot that each had dwelt securely under his vine and fig-tree as long as Solomon lived, that they had eaten and drunken and been merry; they only thought of the dispute about tribute-labor, hence ingratitude and discontent. They agreed to go to Shechem instead of Jerusalem, and only to do homage under certain conditions; this was already mutiny and rebellion. Hereupon they called a man who had lifted his hand against Solomon, and proved himself a foe of Davids house, to be their speaker and leader; with him at their head, they went to the king in the consciousness that they formed the majority of the nation, and laid before him their complaint of excessive labor and want of freedom. When their stormy petition was rejected, there arose wild and scornful cries, and a regular rebellion broke out; they rushed in blind rage at the innocent mediator for the king, and murder him, whereupon the king has to flee in great haste; and they conclude by making their leader and spokesman king. If, on the other hand, we contemplate the conduct of the government, we find everything here, too, that was calculated to call forth rebellion and insurrection instead of avoiding or appeasing it. First, utter ignorance of the feeling among the people, and therefore no sort of precaution for the threatened danger; the king goes thoughtlessly to the discontented people, thus falling into the snare set for him. When surprised in Shechem with the demand made, he is irresolute, asks time for reflection, and keeps the people in suspense, which must only have increased their excitement. He then consults his immediate attendants; the elders advise him to descend from the throne, for the time being, and to humor the people; the young men advise him to the opposite course. Thus there was want of unity in the higher circles, and views in direct antagonism one over against the other. The high-sounding advice of the courtiers pleased the weak and headstrong monarch best, and he delivered an answer which supposes a power which no longer existed, and shows equal folly, arrogance, and contempt of the people. Thereupon the storm broke loose, and Rehoboam then wished to make concessions, and to treat with them. But instead of going himself courageously to face the excited throng, this arrogant and imperious man sent an old and faithful servant to be exposed to their rage. It was too late; Adoram was killed, and he himself had to flee in haste. When such perverted ways, faults, and sins are found in the government, the way for revolution is already formed, and when it has once begun, soldiers are as useless as concessions; what is lost by a persons own fault is lost forever.

5. The appearance of the prophet Shemaiah after the partition seems like the rising of the sun after a dark, stormy night. Whilst sin and wickedness reign in both parties, and none of them cares about the living God, the man of God appears with undaunted courage; armed only with the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, he confronts the blinded, wilful king and an army of 180,000 men. He commands them in the name of the Lord to lay down their arms, and to go home; standing on the rock of his strength (Psa 62:8), he calls to the surging waves, Thus far and no farther! and no one dares to offer opposition. Thus the prophets again come forth in majesty, as the admonishing and avenging conscience of Israel, as the divine corrective of all human actions; and this shows, too, how erroneous the assertion is that the partition of the kingdom was the result of a series of conflicts that went on, especially under Solomon, between the two powers of the monarchy and of the prophets, which existed side by side in Israel. It was not monarchy and the prophets which were in conflict, but Ephraim and the house of David. Both these took purely secular and political ground, and they had no other aim than to lord it over each other. The prophets take a stand-point above both; and the prophet speaks and contends for the divine monarchy in Judah as well as in Israel. As for the rest, Judah appears here in a much more favorable light than Ephraim; it faithfully adheres to Davids house, and knows nothing of complaint of tribute-labor, which had borne as heavily on it as on Ephraim; while Ephraim, which well knew the promise given to Davids house, disregards that promise completely. Judah, knowing the word of the Lord by the prophet, rises against his brethren at the call of his king; but Ephraim listens to a Jeroboam, and if a prophet in Shechem had warned them against insurrection he would doubtless have fared no better than Adoram.

Homiletical and Practical

1Ki 12:1-20. The departure of Israel from the house of David: 1. The grievances. 2. The decision. 3. The rebellion.The division of the kingdom. 1. A consequence of manifold sins (of Solomon, Jeroboam, Rehoboam). 2. A divine dispensation (for their humiliation and chastisement, and for a direction toward the heavenly eternal kingdom, v. Ethical).The sources and causes of the rebellion. 1. In general (estrangement from God, indifferentism, and unbelief). 2. In particular, these sins on the part of the people (Pro 14:34), and on the part of the princes (Pro 20:28). Where prince and people fear God, there will be no rebellion; but where no covenant with God exists, all human considerations fall in pieces.

1Ki 12:1-5. The assemblage of the people at Shechem. 1. Who were present (the ten tribes with Jeroboam, returned from Egypt, at their head, ostensibly to do homage, but really to stir up revolt; the assembling together was unlawful, unbidden, and arbitrary. Warning from such courses. Pro 24:21-22). What the people sought. (Murmurs and complaints against the pretended oppression of Solomon, instead of gratitude for great benefits, and the well-being of the State. These complaints were rather a pretext than the truth, and were an exaggeration of the grievances; they demanded not the maintenance of the law and the covenant; but merely material elevation, less labor, and more outward freedom and independence. Admonition of 1Pe 2:17-19).Preiswerk (in the periodical, Morgenland, 1839): The assembling together of great idle crowds in a small space is a device of all demagogues; these crowds mutually excite each other, masses of men, like-minded, inspire each other with confidence, peaceful councils vanish, men become accustomed to the shouts of the insurgents, imbibe their principles, venture no contradiction against the outburst of passion, especially when swelled by numbers, and, thus inflamed, are dragged onwards in paths from which later repentance can never bring them back.

1Ki 12:1. It is never advisable to go where men are assembling themselves together, who testify by their choice of a meeting-place that they have no good end in view. (Shechem recalls the story in Judges 9.)

1Ki 12:2-3. Experience teaches that those who have once set up an opposition to legitimate authority will ever persist in their resolve, even if their design fail or is pardoned; they only await another opportunity to carry out their plans; therefore they should never be trusted.

1Ki 12:3-4. Rebellious people easily seek and find in public circumstances means which they amplify and exaggerate in order to give an appearance of justice to their wickedness, and to have some pretext for their criminal designs.Cramer: It is an universal fact that men exclaim more concerning oppression than concerning godlessness and other sins; are more careful for the body than for the soul; and, so they are free in action, give little heed to the souls nurture (Exo 16:3).A people which prescribes to its lawful sovereign the conditions of its obedience to him, and directs him how to govern, assumes to itself royal authority, and overturns the appointed order of God, thus rushing surely on to its own destruction.

1Ki 12:5. A prince who, upon his accession to the throne, requires time to decide if his rule shall be mild and merciful or harsh and despotic, cannot have assumed his high responsible post in the fear and love of God; therefore he must expect no divine blessing. It is well and good, indeed, in all weighty matters to take time for reflection, but in time of sudden danger, rapid, firm decision is equally necessary. One accustomed to walk in Gods ways will at such times take no step which will afterward cause him bitter repentance.

1Ki 12:6-11. Rehoboam holds a council. 1. With whom? (With his own servants, old and young, but not with the Lord his God, and with his servants. In difficult and grave matters we should not neglect to take counsel with men, but chiefly should we go to Him for counsel of whom it may be said: He has the way of all ways, and never fails in counsel, and If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, &c. (Jam 1:5). For, saith the Lord, Woe to the rebellious children who take counsel, but not of me, &c. (Isa 30:1). if He sit not in the council, in vain do young and old advise. Had Jeroboam sought light from above in those three days, and prayed as once his father did (1Ki 3:9), or as Jeremiah (Jer 32:19), or entreated like Jehoshaphat (2Ki 3:11), then he would not have been like a reed shaken by the wind, but his heart would have been strong.) 2. The advice given him. (Neither counsel was divine, but both merely human (Mat 16:23). The old men, out of their fear and apprehension, advised: renounce for the present thy royal prerogative, and bow before the will of the people; later thou canst act quite differently. This advice ran counter to his pride and despotism, so he refused the counsel of the old men. Through flattery and insolence combined, the young men counselled a course actually inhuman, viz.: to abuse his royal prerogative, to care nothing for his people and their wishes, but simply to treat them with violence. This advice suited him well, because it corresponded with his rough, harsh, selfish and violent character. But this produced the exact reverse of what he wished and hoped. When you receive conflicting counsels from men, apply to both the test of Gods word, for: Psa 19:8; Psa 119:104 sq.) 1Ki 12:6. It is the first privilege and duty of a king to seek to surround himself with men, who, fearing no man, either high or low, and regardless of their own profit or advantage, shall advise him as befits men responsible before a just and holy God. One such man alone outweighs whole hosts of soldiers, for: Pro 20:28. 1Ki 12:7. A king who refuses to be a servant of God readily finds himself in a situation where he is compelled to be a servant of the people. The splendor of majesty is enhanced by benevolence, goodness, and mercy, but never by timid yielding and submission to the popular will. 1Ki 12:8. Where the counsels of the aged are rejected, be it in a kingdom or in a house, and those only of the youthful followed, there men pursue an unhallowed path. For to a true wisdom of life experience is necessary, and this youth cannot have (Lev 19:32; Sir 8:11). Those who grow up with us have, unconsciously and involuntarily, a vast influence over our modes of thought and views of life, therefore parents must have a watchful eye over the intimacies of their children. 1Ki 12:10-11. A vaunting speech is by no means a proof of courage; the more boastful a mans speech the less resolute he will be in peril and temptation; a truly strong, firm, and calm man is silent. Time-serving and flattery are most dangerous for a prince; they wear the garb of fidelity and devotion, and in reality are the greatest treachery. Chiefly distrust those who counsel thee to do what gratifies thy vanity, thy selfishness, and thine own desires, and costs thee no sacrifice.Osiander: One should rather distrust all harsh judgments, because they accord chiefly with the disposition of the flesh, and not of the spirit, which inclines to mercy.

1Ki 12:12-15. The answer of the king to the people. (a) It is hardnot merely a refusal, but imperious, tyrannical, unbecoming in any sovereign, but especially one who ought to be the servant of the compassionate and merciful God, with whom is great truth and loving-kindness (Exo 34:6). Authority is the handmaid of God, to thee for good (Rom 13:4), and not a terror. Government is not built upon whips and scourges, but upon justice, love, and confidence; that rule alone is thoroughly right where mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other (Psa 85:11). How entirely different is Davids example of sovereignty (Psalms 101.). (b) A rash and inconsiderate counsel, that of the young men, throwing oil on the flames instead of quenching them, and exciting uproar and revolt instead of disposing to submission and obedience. Passion always blinds. When the heart is perverted the head is likewise dulled, and those who are generally shrewd become unwise and unreasonable; for it is not the head which rules the heart, but, on the contrary, the inclinations and desires of the heart are stronger than the thoughts of the head (Prov. 15:1: 30:33; Jam 1:19-20; Eph 5:15-17). He that liveth many days, let him keep his tongue from evil, &c. (Psa 34:13). 1Ki 12:14. Midway between weak concessions and timid neutrality on the one hand, and selfish persistence in presumptive rights on the other, lies a course always pointed out by the Lord to those who bow before Him, pray to Him for wisdom, and long earnestly to do what pleases Him alone. Not only do great lords give harsh answers, but likewise petty rulers; those who moan and complain most bitterly against the tyranny of the great are frequently the greatest tyrants in a small way; they perceive the mote in their neighbors eye, but not the beam in their own.Starke: The voice of the King of kings comes to us utterly unlike that of Rehoboam; therefore should we listen the more submissively and obediently to it.Wrt. Summ: The Most High is ever at hand to change the darkest prospects of the children of men to a happy termination, and the accomplishment of His all holy will, even as Joseph said to his brethren (Gen 1:20). God disposes not the thoughts of man to folly and sin, but brings them to judgment by their very perverseness, and thus makes it serve to carry out His own designs.

1Ki 12:16-19. The rebellion, (a) Its causes, sin, and folly, in high and low places: amongst the people, ingratitude, jealousy, envy, hatred, and thirst for independence: with the king, tyranny, violence, and folly. (b) Its consequences. (Disunion, which was in no wise advantageous, but the beginning of every species of ill-fortune, and of the final dissolution of the kingdom, followed deeds of violence. murder, and death-struggles. A people in rebellion is like a fierce dog unchained. The evil consequences of rebellion are often felt for a century.)

1Ki 12:16. As is the question. so is the answer. He who makes an unprincipled speech must not wonder if he receive a like reply. The same people who once came to David and said: See, we are thy bone and thy flesh, thou hast led us, thou shalt be our king (2Sa 5:1-2), now said: We have no part in David; what is the shepherds son to us? This is the way of the multitude. To-day they cry: Hosanna, blessed be he who cometh in the name of the Lord! To-morrow it is, Crucify him, we will not that he reign over us! To-day, if fortune smile, they are fawning and bland, to-morrow, if misfortune threaten, they cry: Look to thyself. Their cry is: We will be free, and servants of no mannot seeing that they are the blind tools of one or more leaders, who seek to reign over them. With the house of David, Israel flung aside the great promise (2Sa 7:10-16; 2Sa 23:5), which depended on that house. For us has come that Son of David, whose kingdom shall have no end (Luk 1:32 sq.). Let us hold steadfastly by Him, and not be led astray by the uproar of the world: We will have no part in him. He will finally destroy all enemies under his feet. Thus went Israel to his tents, but not as formerly, blest by the king and blessing him, rejoicing over the goodness of the Lord to David, and to his people Israel (1Ki 8:66). He who has not a good conscience cannot return in peace.

1Ki 12:18. The people desired freedom, but a tree of liberty, watered with innocent blood, can only bear poison fruit. He who asks nothing of God can only lead others to folly,he who cannot stand in the gap can never protect others. It is a judgment of God when a monarch, instead of being able to repose in the bosom of any one of his subjects, must needs fly before him to save his life. To yield to superior force is no disgrace, but shameful is the flight which is the result of arrogance and overbearing pride.

1Ki 12:19-20. The great majority fell away, and the small minority remained faithful; the first was ruined and had no future; from the latter came forth the One before whom every knee bowed down, and whom every tongue acknowledged to be the Lord (Mat 2:6; Php 2:11). In the kingdom of God there is no question of majorities and minorities, but it is simply, are we steadfast and faithful unto death? The pretended deliverers of the masses well know how to manage, so that they will become rulers of the people; they allow themselves to be summoned, and apparently persuaded to the very object which was the sole aim of their efforts.

1Ki 12:21. What Rehoboam had lost through insolence and weakness, through wickedness and folly, he now sought to regain by violence and battle; instead of humbling himself beneath the All-powerful hand of God, he is haughty and depends upon his own arm of flesh. The natural heart of man is a froward and timorous thing (Jer 17:9), without safe resting-place or firm support, now buoyed up, now cast down, the football of every storm of fortune. But blessed is the man whose trust and confidence are in the Lord. It is a precious thing, &c. (Heb 13:9). Faith is the victory, &c. (1Jn 5:4.) In the renewed heart is no pride and no fear.

1Ki 12:22-24. The word of the Lord to the king and to the host; (a) the command: Ye shall not, &c.; (b) the cause of the commandment: For this thing is from me; (c) the obedience to the command: And they hearkened, &c. The lives and property of subjects are not to be used to compensate for the sins and follies of their rulers. Civil wars are the most unnatural, and likewise the fiercest and bitterest; he who stirs up strife between brethren commits a crime which never goes unpunished.Shemaiah, a type of the Lords servants. He is a man of God, and as such he brings good tidings of peace (Isa 52:7); he has no other arms than the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God (Eph 6:17); with His word he comes, strong and fearless, before the king and his whole host (Act 4:20; Act 9:15). It is said here of hundreds of thousands: They hearkened to the word of the Lord, and returned, &c. How many thousands to-day hear this word, but, burying it beneath cares, riches, and the pride of life, live on without obedience and without repentance, bringing forth no fruit (Luk 8:14).Wrt. Summ.: We see here with what great might the God of Truth maintains his word. By the prophet Ahijah he announced to Jeroboam that he should rule over ten tribes of Israel: that is accomplished here. He has promised to leave one tribe to the house of David: that is accomplished here. He promised to Ephraim or to his father Joseph, that kings should proceed from them (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33.), and that is fulfilled here, since Jeroboam becomes king through Ephraim. Thus nothing remains unfulfilled of all that God has spoken, promised, or threatened. Solomon and Rehoboam strove to prevent the fulfilment of Gods word in Jeroboam, for which purpose Solomon planned to kill Jeroboam, and Rehoboam assembled a great army against him, but all in vain. Therefore let all men believe and seek after the word of God, and not strive to resist it (Luk 21:33).

[F. D. Maurice: He (Jeroboam)did not trust the living God. He thought not that his kingdom stood upon a divine foundation, but that it was to be upheld by certain divine props and sanctions. The two doctrines seem closely akin; many regard them as identical; in truth there is a whole heaven between them. The king who believes that his kingdom has a divine foundation confesses his own subjection and responsibility to an actual living ruler. The king who desires to surround himself with divine sanctions, would fain make himself supreme, knows that he cannot, and therefore seeks help from the fear men have of an invisible power, in which they have ceased to believe. He wants a God as the support of his authority; what God, he cares very little.E. H.]

Footnotes:

[1]1Ki 12:2.[It is better to omit the italicized words of it, which are not in the Heb. and which must refer to the Assembly at Shechem, whereas what Jeroboam heard of was the death of Solomon, as is expressed in the Vulg. See the Exeg. Com. The Vat. Sept. omits here the whole of 1Ki 12:2 and the greater part of 1Ki 12:3, having given the substance of them (with some addition) at 1Ki 11:43. The Alex. Sept. follows the Heb. Our anthor, in his translation, has omitted the part of 1Ki 12:2 enclosed in brackets, evidently by an inadvertence.

[2]1Ki 12:2.Instead of must be read, with 2Ch 10:2, See the comment. [The text may be preserved without change (for which the Vulg. is the only authority) by considering the statement that Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt as merely the completion of the statement of his flight: he had fled to Egypt and remained there. The change was proposed by Dathe, but is rejected by Maurer and by Keil.

[3]1Ki 12:11., scorpions, flagelli genus globulis plumbeis cum aculeis incurvis munitum, a scorpii similitudine dictum (Gesen. Thes. 11, 1062).

[4]1Ki 12:12.[The Sept. omits here the significant mention of Jeroboam.

[5]1Ki 12:16.[The Heb., Sept., Chald. and Syr. have the pronoun in the singular, thy tents. In the next clanse the Sept. translates , .]

[6]1Ki 12:18.[The Sept., Syr., and Arab. read Adoniram.

[7]1Ki 12:20.[The Sept. here inserts and Benjamin.

[8]1Ki 12:21.[The Vat. (not Alex.) Sept. reduces this number to 120,000.

[9]1Ki 12:22.[Many MSS. followed by the Sept., Vulg., Chald., and Syr. read here instead of .]

[10]1Ki 12:24.[The Vat. (not Alex.) Sept. here inserts a passage quite equal in length to the whole chapter, containing many particulars whose utterly unhistorical character may be seen from the opening statement that Rehoboam was sixteen years old at his accession and reigned twelve years. Cf. 1Ki 14:21.F. G.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, succeeds to the kingdom. He begins his reign in refusing the old men’s counsel, and follows that of young men. Ten tribes of Israel revolt. The chapter concludes with an account of Jeroboam’s idolatry.

1Ki 12:1

(1) And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.

It should seem that Solomon though he had so many wives, had but this one son. There was no dispute therefore about his succession to the kingdom.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Religion Made Easy

1Ki 12:28

Hebe was an adroit and subtle appeal to human nature. Tell the people they are tired; seem to be very anxious about their health; assure them that nothing but a true concern for their physical condition could ever have impelled you to consider the long distance to Jerusalem. Keep them away from Jerusalem, keep them away from the old songs and the old memories, from the reminiscences that start up and make a powerful appeal to human pathos; as it were, lay your petting hand upon them and say, ‘It is too far for you to go to Jerusalem; you could do the same thing much nearer home’. This is a powerful appeal to human nature. Here is a grand-fatherly king; here is a king who, even upon his throne, thinks it worth his while to save us walking or otherwise journeying to Jerusalem: what an excellent man, what a thoughtful king, what a treasure of a friend! He is trying to keep you away from Jerusalem, the city of God, the tabernacle and temple of the Most High; he is seeking to keep you away from the vision that would do good to your eyes, and mayhap might bring you back to old ways and ways forsaken.

I. Jesus Christ never made religion easy. There is where the great difficulty lies with Jesus Christ. He will not allow us to be at ease, and He will not allow us to think that the acceptance of His religion will bring us into a state of lulling, self-easing, and self-considering sentimental reflection. He said, ‘If any man will follow Me, let him take up his cross daily’. He made Himself unpopular, He made Himself utterly disagreeable; He would not rest content with things as they are, but only with things as He would make them, and what He preached He practised.

II. It is very curious, is this study in human nature. It opens up so many possibilities; it touches so many weak points. He says, ‘Now, don’t you think that you are giving away too much money? I say that it is all right to be giving away a certain proportion, but I think that all things ought to be done with a clear eye towards proportion. Now you have been giving away money at the rate of let me see at the rate of ten per cent; you have been giving God a tenth part of your income. Now, although I quite approve of giving God some part of your income, I suggest that you give too much. Don’t give it all at once; certainly not, you are perfectly right to give a certain proportion, but I think less than you do give.’ When a man is so very anxious that you should do less, suspect him, and show him the door. When he is so very anxious that you should lay up for a rainy day at the Lord’s expense, turn him out into a very rainy day.

III. What does the Bible claim? Only one-seventh of your time, but when it claims the seventh, it means that the six-sevenths also belong to God. Jesus Christ never set any man an easy task; Jesus Christ never said, ‘You might do much less; you give away too much, you worship God in spirit and in truth too much’. What He did say could be done too excessively was false worship, to be making new moons and Sabbaths, and fastings and observances, and all these things which were really nothing better than luxuries, to be turning all these into excess and surfeit. The moment religion becomes easy to you, give it up!

Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. VI. p. 165.

Reference. XII. 28. Archbishop Temple, Rugby Sermons, p. 79.

The Sin of Jeroboam

1Ki 12:29

The death of Solomon brought a crisis in national affairs that his successor and son did not know how wisely to meet. Rehoboam’s vacillation and impolitic conduct gave the opportunity, as well as formed the pretext, for a revolt that the ten tribes had long meditated, owing to the jealousy on the part of Ephraim of Judah’s pre-eminence as the ruling house. The dissentient tribes found in Jeroboam a capable leader and a willing abettor of their movement. He had been designated to this position by the prophet Ahijah. The apparent cause of the revolt was political discontent, but a deeper reason underlay the irruption it was God’s method of marking His displeasure with the conduct of the house of Solomon in permitting and fostering idolatrous practices. This reason was known to Jeroboam (1Ki 11:31-33 ). He was made aware of the fault to which he owed his elevation. But this knowledge proved of no advantage in the regulation of his own conduct. 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. While leaning to his own understanding, and failing to conciliate the malcontents among the people, Rehoboam’s more serious fault lay in his not removing the idolatry which had fastened its fangs upon the national life.

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 (v. 26), 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. Domestic loss, the extinction of his family, the utter destruction of the kingdom. 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 disorganized, 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. Thus, as an expedient, it was ill-conceived, dangerous as a precedent, and fraught with mischief. For however right a thing may be in itself, whatever the motive that suggests it, and howsoever necessary circumstances may seem to make it, put in the place of God, it can only be to our hurt. Only in doing right is there safety. It may be inconvenient, there may be fears, but the strong arm of the Almighty is with us that controls all that may be against us, and that can make seemingly adverse things minister to our good. We cannot bound our life with schemes of prudence and political sagacity, if at the expense of rectitude and justice, without discovering we have set up a leakage of strength which ultimately will drain us absolutely dry. Jeroboam’s expedient has nothing in its favour.

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. Recreation is in danger of being substituted for godliness. A gospel of culture is being vigorously preached as indicating the path of safety for the nation’s future life. When shall we learn that godliness is great gain, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come? We cannot set aside the claims of God, either from fear or from jealousy, without finding we have parted from our best friend and chief counsellor. Strength is lost, confidence goes, we fall a prey to the policy upon the inauguration of which so much stress was laid, and from which such different results were anticipated.

Human substitutes for godliness may seem eminently plausible. But we must beware of reasons, however plausible, by which men seek to turn the heart away from God; whatever the character of the object for which they would win your worship, God alone has the right to be heard and obeyed in all that affects worship and godliness. How often have men turned the mercies of God into reasons for rejecting His claims to the allegiance of heart and life!

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Rehoboam

1Ki 12

REHOBOAM (“he enlarges the people”) was the only son of Solomon. His mother was an Ammonitess called Naamah. He began to reign when he was forty-one years old, and he reigned seventeen years. Why mention his mother? Because destiny is often determined by parentage. Life is not a child’s game, played with wooden pieces; its secrets are often deep lying far back in unexpected places, and flashing out ages afterwards in great surprises. Rehoboam was emphatically his mother’s child.

“All Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.” Possibly the Ephraimites insisted that he should go to their city to be crowned; possibly it was a clever stroke of policy on the part of Rehoboam: he may have submitted to an apparent indignity to please the vanity of the restless mountaineers; but where God is working out a plan; all our little schemes and aims are drawn into it as the whirlpool sucks all streams and currents into its mighty and terrible sweep.

Shechem, the metropolis among the mountains of Ephraim, lay thirty-four miles north of Jerusalem, and seven miles south of Samaria. Shechem was a city of refuge ( Jos 20:7 ) a centre of union to the tribes (Jos 24:1 , Jos 24:25 ). Abimelech had reigned there (Judg. ix.). Abimelech destroyed the city, but it was rebuilt and made the capital of Ephraim. Shechem is now called Nabls.

When it is said that all Israel went to Shechem, it may mean that delegates representing Israel went to that city. In great national crises the people speak through their properly qualified representatives. It may have been so in this case.

“And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt)” ( 1Ki 12:2 ).

Jeroboam, when taken notice of by king Solomon, was the son of a widow (Zeruah), and was exceedingly energetic a man who could take charge of large works and carry them out with success. Solomon had an eye for capable men, and he selected Jeroboam to superintend the works which he was establishing in his kingdom. Jeroboam was not only a mighty man of valour, but remarkable as being “industrious,” and therefore king Solomon made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph ( 1Ki 11:28 ). Perhaps we think this was honour enough for the son of Nebat, who was one of the king’s servants, and the son of “a widow woman.” Perhaps Jeroboam thought so too; but men do not fix the bounds of their own habitation, nor determine their own destiny. One day, when Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, a prophet called Ahijah met him, and they two walked alone in the field; and Ahijah took a new garment, rent it into twelve pieces, gave Jeroboam ten of them, and explained to him that he (Jeroboam) would one day be king over Israel. Solomon heard about this, and it made him furious. He sought to kill Jeroboam, and so he who was one day to be a king fled away into Egypt, put himself under the special protection of Shishak, king of that country, and waited there until the death of Solomon. Great destinies are worth waiting for. Many men are now in obscurity who will one day be called to honour and influence. God’s promises seem sometimes to be turned upside down, so much so that it is difficult to distinguish them from temptations. What was Jeroboam to think when he was driven from a high position into exile and poverty? Truly he might think that he had been misled by a shadow in the water. But the time of his manifestation was at hand. Jeroboam was in Egypt when Solomon died, but he was in Shechem when the tribes assembled there. It would appear that as soon as he heard of the death of Solomon he returned out of Egypt.

Now that we have all the characters before us we may imagine the scene. Shechem, a city in the mountains of Ephraim; Rehoboam, the son of a king, going up to be acknowledged and crowned; the people ill at ease, yet not unwilling to be loyal to the new king if he will but show himself gracious to them and lessen their burdens; Jeroboam at the head of the deputation, and the following speech made:

“Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee” ( 1Ki 12:4 ).

Earnest men do not make exaggerated demands. Mere disturbers would have claimed a great deal; they would have said, We must ask much in order to get little; we must demand a thousand if we would get a hundred. But these men were not mere disturbers. They were animated by a patriotic and solemn purpose, and they said neither more nor less than they really meant. True strength does not weaken itself by exaggerations.

“And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me” ( 1Ki 12:5 ).

This is important, as showing that Rehoboam knew what he was doing. There could be no after-thought of insanity, or no suggestion of having been unduly urged and driven by impulsive people. These short verses in human history are often charged with great meanings.

Now mark what follows as still further confirming this view. Rehoboam consulted with the old men, the veterans who had stood before Solomon his father, and they, as became the dignity of age and the fulness of their experience, gave counsels of conciliation; Meet the people, said they, and they will be thy servants for ever. But Rehoboam turned to the young men, the men who had grown up with him, and they said, Say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins, and now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. This answer Rehoboam gave on the third day. We may well ask, How is such insanity to be accounted for? The answer is in the fifteenth verse: “The cause was from the Lord.” He sends men strong delusion that they should believe a lie. He blinds whom he means to destroy. An awful doctrine in one aspect truly, but a very gracious one in another; gracious, because it is infinitely better that all such insanities should be of the Lord’s sending and under the Lord’s control, that they should be parts of a great scheme ending in mercy, than that the world should be the sport of eccentric minds and its policies and advancements the playthings of idiot rulers. If you ask whether there is not some better way than that taken by the Lord in the case of Rehoboam, I answer, The Lord reigneth, and our wisdom, apparently so excellent, is foolishness before him.

“So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel; now see to thine own house, David” ( 1Ki 12:16 ).

This is commonly read as a threat of war, but is more critically read as a “a warning against interference.” The Speaker’s Commentary says, The meaning of “Now see to thine house, David,” seems to be, Henceforth, house of David, look after thine own tribe, Judah, only.

“But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them” ( 1Ki 12:17 ).

Now from this time we must make a distinction. Israel will represent the ten seceding or revolting tribes, and Judah will represent those Israelites who acknowledged Rehoboam as king. This is the great division.

“Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem” ( 1Ki 12:18 ).

Not the home-coming that the king expected. He might have brought back with him the allegiance of the whole nation, instead of that he brought but the small following of Judah and Benjamin. Adoram was probably sent with some offer of better terms. The king had probably seen his mistake and was now willing to concede the demands of the deputies. He would reduce the heavy taxation, or mitigate the forced labour. But it was too late! Beware of this word too late! Kings exist for peoples, not peoples for kings.

Ver. 20. When all Israel, i.e., all the people in the most literal sense, and not the delegates only, had heard that Jeroboam was come again, they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel. Thus the prophecy was fulfilled. Thus tyranny was broken, and thus a great rent was made in human history.

Now what are the lessons of world-wide importance that are here taught? (1) God is the King of kings; (2) Great power, without great wisdom, becomes tyranny; (3) All divine promises are made conditionally: David’s sons did evil, and therefore the kingdom was almost wholly taken from them; (4) Loyalty to kings must bend to loyalty to God; (5) Let nations put their trust in God, and he will work out their deliverance. What is true of nations is true of individuals.

“An ancient French counsellor, being asked by his king to lay down some general rules for government, took a piece of paper, and wrote on the top of it ‘moderation,’ in the middle of the leaf ‘moderation,’ and at the bottom ‘moderation'” Trapp.

“But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him” ( 1Ki 12:8 ). “It was the custom in different countries to educate with the heir to the throne noblemen of nearly the same age. This answered two great and important ends: (1) it excited the prince to emulation, that he might as far as possible surpass his rivals in age; and (2) that he might acquire a good knowledge of those who were to hold the highest offices under him ” Adam Clarke.

“The usurpation of the throne was Jeroboam’s first sin, to which he added a second and much greater one immediately after his ascent of the throne namely, the establishment of an unlawful worship, by which he turned the political division into a religious schism, and a falling away from Jehovah, the God-King of his people ” Keil.

“Rehoboam’s oppression of the people was a sin ; yet, you will observe, the people had no right to complain. They had brought this evil on themselves; they had obstinately courted and struggled after it. They would have ‘a king like the nations,’ a despotic king, and now they had one they were discontented. Samuel had not only earnestly and solemnly protested against this measure, as an offence against their Almighty Governor, but had actually forewarned them of the evils which despotic power would introduce among them.” Newman.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

The Sin of Jeroboam

1Ki 12

Kings must build. The enlargement and decorations of cities is pleasant to subjects. They sometimes mistake building for security, as for example in the case of Jericho.

Jeroboam built Shechem. (See Jdg 9:45 .) The meaning is that Jeroboam enlarged and fortified the old capital of Ephraim, which was now to become the royal city of Israel. Antiquity has always been an element of value. No new city could have had the charm of Shechem. How to attach the new to the old has always been a critical problem for all leaders.

Jeroboam also built (restored, completed, fortified) Penuel. The ancient name was Peniel. (See Gen 32:30 .) Penuel was on tolerably high ground, higher at all events than Succoth. It lay on an important route and commanded the fords of Jabbok. (See Jdg 8:17 .) Gideon destroyed the fort or tower, and probably Jeroboam rebuilt it. The exact site of Penuel is now unknown.

“And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam, king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam, king of Judah” ( 1Ki 12:26-27 ).

It was easier to do the outward work of building, than to do the inward work of establishing the loyalty of excited men. This reflection gives an insight into the character Jeroboam. (1) He was far-sighted; (2) he was highly imaginative; (3) he was appalled by the very grandeur of his own success. It began to overweight him. It threw a shadow on the future. Now all these characteristics are only good so far as they are turned to good purposes. They are amongst the highest qualities or powers, but they may be turned to the ruin of their possessor. Edged instruments sometimes tempt men to commit suicide.

This reflection also throws light upon the new position of Jeroboam; (1) the old might re-assert its supremacy; (2) through the religious emotions political ascendency might be re-established; (3) the people were part of a great whole, and Rehoboam was their lawful king. It will therefore be intensely interesting to find out how a shrewd and powerful man will conduct himself in such a crisis. Here is the answer: “Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan” ( 1Ki 12:28-29 ).

There are many lessons arising out of this arrangement, lessons of universal application; let us try to seize some of them.

(1) Here is a distinct oversight of Jeroboam’s divine call to the throne.

(2) Here is an attempt to meet earthly difficulties by earthly stratagems. The help of heaven is not invoked. The king took the case wholly into his own hand.

(3) Here is an attempt to pass off the counterfeit for the real, the two golden calves were set up as God. The religious element in human nature must be provided for. Kings have to consider it. Scientists must not ignore it Even atheists have to cope with it. These be thy gods, Money, Nature, Self, Continuity, Development. It is for the Christian teacher to set up the true God and Saviour of the world.

(4) Here is the distinct abuse of divine providence. Jeroboam was called to the kingdom by the Lord, yet the very first thing he does is to ignore the Lord who called him, and put up two calves of gold in his place. Success ill-used is the ruin of any man. The prosperity which forgets the God who gave it is the greatest calamity of human life. Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.

(5) Here is an instance of the ease with which discipline is relaxed, and a proof that relaxed discipline leads to the loosening and deterioration of character. “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem,” said the king. An appeal to the weak side of human character. It is an appeal made today; ( a ) you are not fit to go to church; ( b ) it is too far to go; ( c ) the weather is unfavourable. It is easy to set man in downward motion. When discipline is relaxed, the whole character will easily fall to pieces. (6) Here is the exact value which Jeroboam put upon the intelligence and dignity of his subjects. He gave them a calf for a god! Refined people will have refined gods. Refined gods will help to make a refined people. In this respect the Christian religion pays the highest tribute to human intelligence. It calls men to a God infinite in every perfection. An argument in support of the Christian religion may be founded on this fact. Judge a religion by its god. Judge a people by the kind of god that will satisfy them. If a calf will do, what must be their intelligence? If nature will do, what must be their emotion? If science will do, what must be their moral sense? If nothing will do, what must be their whole organisation?

On the side of the people there was (1) Utter forgetfulness of the solemn and holy history of Israel; (2) a moral lethargy that exposed itself to every temptation; (3) a spiritual debasement that preferred personal ease to religious discipline. People who can be content with a calf for a god may well be content with a rebel for a king. The perversion of religious feeling carries with it the perversion of all other feeling. As worship is debased, patriotism is enfeebled.

“And he set, the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made Levites of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi” ( 1Ki 12:29-31 ).

Jereboam’s power of management comes out here; he excelled in organisation. The calves were set up at opposite ends of the kingdom. Note the lessons: (1) Clever management of religious affairs is no proof of personal piety or godliness. (2) There is a temptation when religion is taken under imperial patronage or direction to subordinate the religious to the political Jeroboam said in effect, “I must take care of the kingdom whatever comes of the Church: the king first, and God afterwards.” (3) How possible it is to make people believe that holy places make holy deeds. Herein see the cunning of Jeroboam. Bethel and Dan were both sacred places; the one, Bethel, would touch the sentiment of the southerns; the other, Dan, would touch the sentiment of the dwellers in northern Palestine. (About Bethel see Gen 28:11-19 , Gen 35:9-15 , 1Sa 7:16 . About Dan see Jdg 18:30 , Jdg 18:31 .) (4) Observe that when impious kings venture to make priests they make convenient tools for themselves. They are afraid of high intelligence, noble character, divine inspiration, and daring power. They want their own servants, not God’s. The true ministry is called of heaven. If Jeroboam first offered the office to the Levites and they refused it, their refusal was a proof of their divine election. The expression “made priests of the lowest of the people” means literally “from the ends of the people,” equal to “from all ranks of the people.”

“So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel; and he offered upon the altar and burnt incense” ( 1Ki 12:33 ).

Thus the king himself became a priest: his power of management and scheming is once more brought to bear. He who had managed great imperial works of a material kind was tempted to measure his intellectual sagacity against religious problems. So Jeroboam set up a system of his own. He changed the festival month. Where everything has been appointed and determined by God no change is permissible. Under such circumstances he who would change a date would change a doctrine. God specified for the candlesticks and the snuffers as well as for the mercy seat and the cherubim. Having brought the office of a priest into contempt, the king sought to make it respectable by assuming it himself, so we patch our own poor work, and cover our decrepitude with a mantle of gold.

Note

The leading object of Jeroboam’s policy was to widen the breach between the two kingdoms, and to rend asunder those common interests among all the descendants of Jacob, which it was one great object of the law to combine and interlace. To this end he scrupled not to sacrifice the most sacred and inviolable interests and obligations of the covenant people, by forbidding his subjects to resort to the one temple and altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem, and by establishing shrines at Dan and Bethel the extremities of his kingdom where “golden calves” were set up as the symbols of Jehovah, to which the people were enjoined to resort and bring their offerings. The pontificate of the new establishment he united to his crown, in imitation of the Egyptian kings. He was officiating in that capacity at Bethel, offering incense, when a prophet appeared, and in the name of the Lord, announced a coming time, as yet far off, in which a king of the house of David, Josiah by name, should burn upon the unholy altar the bones of its ministers. He was then preparing to verify, by a commissioned prodigy, the truth of the oracle he had delivered, when the king attempted to arrest him, but was smitten with palsy in the arm he stretched forth. At the same moment the threatened prodigy took place, the altar was rent asunder, and the ashes strewed far around. This measure had, however, no abiding effect. The policy on which Jeroboam acted lay too deep in what he deemed the vital interests of his separate kingdom, to be even thus abandoned; and the force of the considerations which determined his conduct may in part be appreciated from the fact that no subsequent king of Israel, however well disposed in other respects, ever ventured to lay a finger on this schismatical establishment. Hence “the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, wherewith he sinned and made Israel to sin,” became a standing phrase in describing that iniquity from which no king of Israel departed (1Ki 12:25-33 ; 1Ki 13 ).

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

II

THE DISRUPTION AND SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

1Ki 12:1-24 ; 2Ch 10:1-11:4

At the close of the introductory chapter we were considering the causes of the division, remote and near. I had not quite concluded that subject. The one man most to blame for this division was Solomon. The overruling cause was God. This was announced to Solomon, 1Ki 11:9-13 , as follows: “And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from the Lord, God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice. And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he kept not that which the Lord commanded. Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.” Mark that one tribe.

God’s purpose was announced to Jeroboam with the conditions, 1Ki 11:27-40 , “And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valour: and Solomon saw the young man that he was industrious, and he gave him charge over all the labor of the house of Joseph. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king. And it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; now Ahijah had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field. And Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces [mark the 12 pieces]. And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (but he shall have one tribe, for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel) because that they have forsaken me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the God of Moab, and Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon; and they have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life, for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp always before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel.”

Now mark the conditions: “And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that which is right in mine eyes, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and will build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee. And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever. Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam; but Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.”

In pursuance of this overruling of God, an enemy did he raise up from the south against Solomon, 1Ki 11:14 ; 1Ki 11:21-22 : “And the Lord raised up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom. And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country. Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? And he answered, Nothing: howbeit let me depart in any wise.” When Joab made war on Edom and almost extirpated the nation, one little boy this boy Hadad was saved. His mother and some friends got him into Egypt, and there he wag raised up. Now, that is enemy number two; Jeroboam was the first.

An enemy was also raised up from the north by the Lord. In 1Ki 11:23 ; 1Ki 11:25 we read: “And God raised up another adversary unto him, Rezon the son of Eliada, which had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel and reigned over Syria.” Mark the rise of the Syrian government on the north; we will have a good deal to do with it in the history in connection with this man Rezon and his successors. Now, here are three men, and when a man has three deadly enemies he must walk prudently. From this northern enemy arose the Syrians.

The immediate occasion of the division was a great popular assembly of the whole nation, called to meet at Shechem, one of the holy places in the tribe of Ephraim, to consider the question of the kingdom; the immediate cause of the disruption took place at that popular assembly, which we will bring out more particularly. The law of selecting kings was as follows: First, God must appoint him. Second, the people in popular assembly must approve. That was not an absolute monarchy: it was both a monarchy and a democracy. The great congregation of Israel, the Jewish ecclesia or church, had a potential voice in public affairs. The proof of this is seen in the fact that the popular assembly approved Saul, David and Solomon, after God had appointed them. The reader will find that a great popular assembly met at Mizpeh (1Sa 10:17-21 ), and in that assembly the people ratified God’s choice of Saul as king. Then when God made David king a great popular assembly came together at Hebron (2Sa 5:1-3 ; 1Ch 2:1-3 ) and ratified the divine choice. When Solomon was made king this popular assembly was held at Gihon (1Ki 1:38-40 ). So we see that these assemblies were customary in order to commit the people by voluntary act to God’s appointment. We find in Exo 19 that the popular assembly voted to enter into covenant with God. So we must not consider this convocation at Shechem as an irregular or unusual proceeding. Shechem, the place of the assembly, was a notable place in Jacob’s time, and long after Jacob. It has long been a holy place and was situated in the hill country of Ephraim.

When Solomon died the tribes sent to Egypt for Jeroboam to come back. I have showed the great capacity and industry of this spokesman. He belonged to the tribe of Ephraim; and the prophet of the tribe of Ephraim at Shiloh had announced to him that he would be king of the ten tribes. Inasmuch as he had been assessor and collector over Ephraim and Manasseh, he had ample opportunity to get acquainted with the people, to know exactly what their burdens were under the Solomon rule, and they admired him very much. So it was quite natural that when this great assembly was held in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim, Jeroboam should be brought back to be the spokesman. And I am surprised in view of the prophecy made by Ahijah that the tribes were so temperate in that public meeting.

The proposition of the tribes to Rehoboam was as follows: “If you will lighten somewhat the burdens put on us by your father, we will serve you and will ratify your divine nomination as king.” They had a real grievance; Solomon had imposed onerous taxes for the purpose of luxury) vainglory, and to pamper his heathen wives. It was a very just grievance; and they proposed only that the burden be lightened somewhat. Now, we may not expect a popular assembly to consent to being governed by a man who disregards their interests. Rehoboam said, “I will take it under advisement three days.” That was a very wise thing to do. So he utilized the three days in seeking advice. First, he applied to the old men, the counsellors of his father. That also was a thoughtful thing to do. Action belongs to young men, but counsel belongs to old men; old men have more experience, and they are not apt to think that they have the world in a sling as young men are wont to do.

The parallel texts show a verbal difference in the counsel of the old men. 1Ki 12:7 says, “If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and will serve them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever.” That is, the old men counseled reciprocal service; the king must serve the people if he wants the people to serve him. Now the idea of serving does not appear in the Chronicles’ account, but the “good words” does; about the serving 2Ch 10:7 says, “If thou be kind unto these people, and please them, and speak good words then they will be thy servants,” but I stand upon what is said in Kings. No man need expect to be a ruler of a free people in a tyrannical sense; he is not there for his own good: he is there to serve the people, and whether he be a policeman, a constable, a judge, a legislator, a governor, or president, if he does not render equitable service to the people, he is not entitled to the respect of the people. That goes with all offices; that is the principle, and those were wise old men who gave that advice.

Now, if he had said to those people, “It is evident that these burdens on you are too heavy, and that the kingdom is not carried on sufficiently in your interest, and you have as much right to the protection of the king as he has to expect your cooperation,” the matter would have been ended. But Rehoboam, raised up in that cosmopolitan, luxurious court of his father, in which the very air of the foreigner was breathed, and imbued with the ideas of Oriental despotism absorbed even in his youth, turned away from these old men and went to the young courtiers, the young fellows brought up with him, and said, “What do you say that I should reply to this popular assembly?” If ever on earth the folly of youth appears, it is in the suggestion of these young men. They looked on a king as a despot, as absolutely owning the people under him. Their counsel virtually was this: “Do not commence your reign with compromise and weak conciliation. Be a master. Speak roughly. Tell them plainly you will add to, instead of lightening, their yokes; that your little finger will be heavier than your father’s loins, and whereas he chastized them with whips you will chastize them with scorpions.”

What is the meaning of “chastize with scorpions”? There were two kinds of whipping: one with scourges, generally made with twisted leather or rods. The other was a stiff handle with ten or twelve leather thongs attached to it, pointed with pieces of wire crooked like fish hooks at the end of each piece of leather, like the “cat-o’-nine-tails” in the navy, or the Russian Knout. To strip a man and bring that iron-pointed whiplash down on his naked back, every stroke would cut into his flesh in ten or twelve places. That is whipping with a scorpion.

The reply of the ten tribes when that scorpion whip was held up was the very war cry of Sheba’s rebellion: “What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents O Israel: now see to thine own house, David.” Well, that is a very natural response. Any popular assembly would have responded like that. Patrick Henry said that the colonies had exhausted every method of seeking redress of grievances; that they had prostrated themselves at the foot of the throne; that they had tried petition and argument, and in response to their petitions they had been spurned from the foot of the throne; instead of favors, fleets and armies had been sent to darken the waters and overshadow the land. What was their reply to a tyrannical throne? It was an appeal to arms from New England to Georgia. So Israel departed to their own tents.

The first attempt to enforce union was when Rehoboam sent his deputy, Hadoram, to go right on and collect the tribute, and when this collector came to enforce collections, they simply stoned him to death; that was their reply. The second attempt was when Rehoboam assembled an army of 180,000 men like England assembled her armies but before the battle commenced God’s prophet, Shemaiah, came and forbade this war against their brethren, and announced that this division was of the Lord; that he overruled it. Thus the voice of God prevented an attempt to coerce a union.

The revolting ten tribes were Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Gad, Dan, Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Benjamin. Now doubtless some one will come back at me with the question: How is that? Benjamin was a part of the army Rehoboam raised. Yes, part of Benjamin was living in Judean cities a small part of the tribe lived in Jerusalem but the bulk of the tribe of Benjamin went with the ten tribes. Now there is Judah on one side and those ten tribes on the other side; that makes eleven tribes. Where is the twelfth tribe, Simeon? My answer is that his territory was inside of the territory of Judah, and when we say Judah we mean Judah and Simeon. How, then, does the division go? On one side is Judah including Simeon and a part of Benjamin, the city of Jerusalem and five miles around it to the north, including such of the ten tribes as dwelt in the territory of Judah. They came down to the Temple service, and finding it convenient, made their homes there. The record says in 2Ch 10:17 , “But as for the children of Israel that dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them.” So there were two tribes and certain parts of tribes in Judah.

Now, that still does not account for one tribe. There were originally thirteen tribes, but God took the tribe of Levi to himself and made up the original number of twelve tribes by giving Joseph two tribes Ephraim and Manasseh. What about the tribe of Levi? My answer is that the tribe of Levi was distributed in the Levitical cities all over the whole territory. That was God’s tribe, and we will learn in the next chapter that the Levites went with the tribe of Judah, solid. Indeed we learn a remarkable piece of Judaic history in the next chapter with reference to these Levitical cities. When Jeroboam established his government and worship and created a priesthood out of the common people anybody the Levites who were distributed in all the cities all over the country, abandoned the ten tribes and sided with Judah forever. So now we have Judah, Levi, Simeon, a part of Benjamin and a resident part of the population of Israel living in Judah. In the following history we will see large secessions from Israel to Judah.

The ten tribes got all of that big territory east of the river Jordan, including Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh; then they got from the northern point of the Dead Sea straight across the Mediterranean Sea, allowing Judah about five miles north of Jerusalem. Even Jericho fell to the ten tribes. There remained to Judah a little bit of a county affair; it was only five miles from Jerusalem to the northern line, and only about twenty miles in any other direction that they were enabled to hold. Rehoboam’s circuit of fifteen fortified cities really delimited on the south and west. Most of the schools of the prophets were in the Northern Kingdom. But all through this history we will see that there is a steady stream of the ten tribes coming back to Judah. That is one of the things that Chronicles particularly notices.

The period of the divided kingdom was about 253 years. Only one dynasty reigned in Judah, the line of David; there were never any changes. There were nine dynasties in Israel. The ten tribes were always changing. They commenced with Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and his son, and then all his family was killed. The second was Baasha and his son, Elah, and they were all killed; third, Zimri, and he was killed; fourth, Omri; there were two claimants, a man named Tibni contested with Omri. Omri had three successors in his family, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram. The fifth dynasty was Jehu. He killed every man, woman, and child that belonged to the family of Omri. Jehu had the longest dynasty of any of the northern kings: Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II and Zechariah. The sixth dynasty was Shallum. He held the fort but one month. The seventh dynasty was Manahem and his son Pekahiah, succeeded him. The eighth dynasty was Pekah: he was killed. The ninth dynasty, and the last, was Soshea, and he was led away into captivity. Note the great difference: there was no settled government of the ten tribes throughout the period of all the 253 years, and not a good king. There were only three dynasties of the Northern Kingdom which were history makers: the dynasties of Jeroboam I, Omri, and Jehu. We will have a great deal to do with those three dynasties.

Certain prophets are named, some of whom wrote canonical books of the Bible. In the Northern Kingdom the following prophets are named: Ahijah, Jehu, Elijah, Micaiah, Elisha, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Oded. Three of them wrote Bible books: Jonah, Amos, and Hosea. Some of the prophets north and south are unnamed. The prophets of the Southern Kingdom before the fall of Israel, who are named, were Shemaiah, Iddo, Azariah, Hanani, Jehu, Jahaziel, Eliezer, Obadiah, Joel, Zechariah (not the postexilian prophet), Isaiah, and Micah. Of these four wrote canonical books: Obadiah, Joel, Isaiah, Micah. In Israel where were the schools of the prophets they far exceeded by the hundreds. In both kingdoms they were the very life of the nation. They were the historians, poets, orators, reformers the very voice of God to the conscience of king and people.

The difference in the attitude of the prophets in the two kingdoms toward the kings is very marked. In the Northern Kingdom every prophet was against the kings, except one and he only a part of the time. The Northern Kingdom was always against God, and the prophets were always for God, and we see a fight between the prophets and the kings. Now, in the Southern Kingdom, four-fifths of the time the prophets and the kings worked together. That is a remarkable difference. The one notable exception in the Northern Kingdom was Elisha. Of the prophets named Jonah was a foreign missionary. Here the question of the ten tribes comes up. Were the ten tribes lost and what is the proof? I say the proof is found in the secessions from Israel to Judah and the later references to the several tribes. Hosea and Amos of the Northern Kingdom foretold the recovery of the ten tribes. See Hos 1:10-11 ; Hos 3:4-5 ; Amo 9:7-15 .

One comment closes the record of most of the northern kings: “And he walked in the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which he caused Israel to sin.” We will find a sin bigger than the sin of Jeroboam after a while in the Northern Kingdom.

Judah had great advantages. First, it had the Temple and its services and its feasts. Second, it had the priests and Levites, we may say, the teachers; they were the great scholars. Third, it had the undying promise of God that the line of David should never fail.

QUESTIONS

1. What one man was most to blame for the division of the Kingdom?

2. What was the overruling cause?

3. How was this announced to Solomon?

4. How was God’s purpose announced to Jeroboam, and what conditions thus stated?

5. In pursuance of this overruling of God, what enemy did he raise up from the south against Solomon and what of his history?

6. What enemy was raised up from the north by the Lord?

7. What nation arose from this northern enemy?

8. What was the immediate occasion of the division?

9. What law of selecting kings?

10. What proof that this was the law of selecting kings?

11. Who was the spokesman of the ten tribes in this popular assembly and what his special qualifications for this duty?

12. What proposition of the ten tribes to Rehoboam, what his immediate answer and what the wisdom of such a course?

13. What counsel of the old men and what its merits?

14. How did Rehoboam regard this counsel and what course did he pursue?

15. What is meant by “chastize with scorpions”?

16. What was the reply of the ten tribes to the threat of chastisement with scorpions and what example in modern history?

17. What was Rehoboam’s first attempt to enforce union and what was the result?

18. What was his second attempt and what its result?

19. What the revolting tribes and of what did Judah consist? Explain fully.

20. What were the geographical limits of the two divisions?

21. To which side were adherents always coming from the other side?

22. How long the period of the divided kingdom?

23. How many and what dynasties in Judah?

24. How many and what dynasties in Israel?

25. What three dynasties of Israel were history makers?

26. What prophets are named in each kingdom and who of them wrote canonical books of the Bible?

27. What difference in the attitude of the prophets in the two kingdoms towards the kings?

28. What one notable exception in the Northern Kingdom?

29. Which of the prophets named was a foreign missionary?

30. Were the ten tribes lost and what the line of argument?

31. What prophets of the Northern Kingdom foretold the recovery of the ten tribes and what the passages?

32. What one comment closes the record of most of the northern kings?

33. What great advantages had Judah?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1Ki 12:1 And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.

Ver. 1. And Rehoboam went to Shechem. ] It was an oversight in Solomon, that he had not before his death made his son king – as David had done him, for preventing of troubles; as also in Rehoboam, that he being the undoubted heir of the kingdom – settled by God upon Solomon and his heirs 2Sa 7:12-13 – expected the consent of the people, whom he knew to be seditiously inclined, and yielded to meet them at Shechem, a city of Ephraim, that turbulent tribe, where Jeroboam was so powerful. But God, who infatuateth those he meaneth to punish, had a holy hand in all.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 Kings

HOW TO SPLIT A KINGDOM

1Ki 12:1 – 1Ki 12:17 .

The separation of the kingdom of Solomon into two weak and hostile states is, in one aspect, a wretched story of folly and selfishness wrecking a nation, and, in another, a solemn instance of divine retribution working its designs by men’s sins. The greater part of this account deals with it in the former aspect, and shows the despicable motives of the men in whose hands was the nation’s fate; but one sentence 1Ki 12:15 draws back the curtain for a moment, and shows us the true cause. There is something very striking in that one flash, which reveals the enthroned God, working through the ignoble strife which makes up the rest of the story. This double aspect of the disruption of the kingdom is the main truth about it which the narrative impresses on us.

As to the mere details of the incident, as a political revolution, they are in four stages. First come the terms of allegiance offered to the new king. Rehoboam goes to Shechem, because ‘Israel was gone’ there. The choice of the place is suspicious; for it was in the tribe of Ephraim, and had been for a time the centre of national life; and its selection at once indicated discontent with the preponderance of Jerusalem, and a wish to assert the importance of the central tribes. No doubt, the choice of the latter city for the capital had caused heart-burning, even during David’s time.

Adopting the reading of the Revised Version, we see another suspicious sign in the recall of Jeroboam, and his selection as spokesman; for he had been in rebellion against Solomon 1Ki 11:26, and therefore an exile. Probably he had now been the instigator of the discontent of which he became the mouthpiece; and, in any case, his appearance as the leader was all but a declaration of war. His former occupation as superintendent of the forced labour exacted from his own tribe taught him where the shoe pinched, and the weight of the yoke would not be lessened in his representations.

No doubt, the luxury and splendour of Solomon’s brilliant reign had an under side of oppression, even though forced labour was not exacted from Israelites 1Ki 9:22; but probably the severity was exaggerated in these complaints, which were plainly the pretext for a revolt of which tribal jealousy was the main cause, and Jeroboam’s ambition the spark that set light to the train. Certainly there was ignoring of the benefits of the peaceful reign, which had brought security and commerce. But there was enough truth in the complaint to make it plausible and effective for catching the people. Had they a right to suspend their allegiance on compliance with their terms?

Israel was neither a despotism, nor simply a constitutional monarchy. God appointed the kings, and had ordained the Davidic house to the throne; and therefore this making terms was, in effect, asserting independence of God’s will. Jeroboam was scheming for a crown. The people were shaking off their submission to God. It is very doubtful if concession would have conciliated them. There is nothing elevated, not to say religious, in their motives or acts.

Then comes Rehoboam on the scene. The one sensible thing that he did was to take three days to think. Whether or no his little finger was thicker than his father’s loins, his head was not half so wise. Ecclesiastes, speaking in Solomon’s name, reckons it a great evil that he must leave his labour to his successor; ‘and who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool?’ Certainly Rehoboam had little ‘wisdom’ either of the higher or lower kind. It was the lower kind which the old counsellors of his father gave him,-that wisdom which is mere cunning directed to selfish ends, and careless of honour or truth. ‘Flatter them to-day, speak them fair, promise what you do not mean to keep, and then, when you are firm in the saddle, let them feel bit and spur.’ That was all these grey-headed men had learned. If that was what passed for ‘wisdom’ in Solomon’s later days, we need not wonder at revolt.

To act on such motives is bad enough, but to put them into plain words, and offer them as the rule of a king’s conduct, is a depth of cynical contempt for truth and kingly honour that indicates only too clearly how rotten the state of Israel was. Have we never seen candidates for Parliament and the like on one side of the water, and for Congress, Senate, or Presidency on the other, who have gone to school to the old men at Shechem? The prizes of politicians are often still won by this stale device. The young counsellors differ only in the means of gaining the object. Neither set has the least glimmer of the responsibility of the office, nor ever thinks that God has any say in choosing the king. Naked, undisguised selfishness animates both; only, as becomes their several ages, the one set recommends crawling and the other bluster. Think of Saul hiding among the staff, David going back to his sheep after he was anointed, Solomon praying for wisdom to guide this people, and measure the depth of descent to this ignoble scramble for the sweets of royalty!

According to 1Ki 14:21 , Rehoboam was forty-one at this time, so his contemporaries could not have been very young. But possibly the number in the present text is an error for twenty-one, which would agree better with the tone of the reference to age here, and with the rash counsel. Note the recurrence, both in Rehoboam’s question in 1Ki 12:9 and in the young advisers’ answer in 1Ki 12:10 , of the obnoxious speech of the people. That may be accidental, but it sounds as if both he and they were keeping their anger warm by repeating the offensive complaint.

The Revised Version reads, ‘My little finger is thicker,’ etc., and so makes the sentence not a threat, but the foundation of the following threat in an arrogant and empty assertion of greater power. The fool always thinks himself wiser than the wise dead; the ‘living dog’ fancies that his yelp is louder than the roar of ‘the dead lion.’ What can be done with a Rehoboam who brags that he is better than Solomon?

The threat which follows is inconceivably foolish; and all the more so because it probably did not represent any definite intention, and certainly was backed by no force adequate to carry it out. Passion and offended dignity are the worst guides for conduct. Threats are always mistakes. A sieve of oats, not a whip, attracts a horse to the halter. If Rehoboam had wished to split the kingdom, he could have found no better wedge than this blustering promise of tyranny.

Next in this miserable story of imbecility and arrogance comes the answer to the assembly. Shechem had seen many an eventful hour, but never one heavier with important issues than that on which the united Israel met for the last time, and there, in the rich valley with Ebal and Gerizim towering above them, heard the fateful answer of this braggart. A dozen rash words brought about four hundred years of strife, weakness, and final destruction. And neither the foolish speaker nor any man in that crowd dreamed of the unnumbered evils to flow from that hour. Since issues are so far beyond our sight, how careful it becomes us to be of motives! Angry counsels are always blunders. No nation can prosper when moderate complaints are met by threats, and ‘spirited conduct,’ asserting dignity, is a sign of weakness, not of strength. For nations and individuals that is true.

Here the historian draws back the curtain. On earth stand the insolent king and the now mutinous people, each driving at their ends, and neither free of sin in their selfishness. A stormy scene of passion, without thought of God, rages below, and above sits the Lord, working His great purpose by men’s sin. That divine control does not in the least affect the freedom or the guilt of the actors. Rehoboam’s disregard of the people’s terms was ‘a thing brought about of the Lord,’ but it was Rehoboam’s sin none the less. That which, looked at from the mere human side, is the sinful result of the free play of wrong motives, is, when regarded from the divine side, the determinate counsel of God. The greatest crime in the world’s history was at the same time the accomplishment of God’s most merciful purpose. Calvary is the highest example of the truth, which embraces all lesser instances of the wrath of man, which He makes to praise Him and effect His deep designs.

Again, the rending of the kingdom was the punishment of sin, especially Solomon’s sin of idolatry, which was closely connected with the extravagant expenditure that occasioned the separation. So the so-called natural consequences of transgression constitute its temporal punishment in part, and behind all these our eyes should be clear-sighted enough to behold the operative will of God. This one piercing beam of light, cast on that scene of insolence and rebellion, lights up all history, and gives the principle on which it must be interpreted, if it is not to be misread.

Again, the punishment of sin, whether that of a community or of a single person, is sin. The separation was sin, on both sides; it led to much more. It was the consequence of previous departure. So ever the worst result of any sin is that it opens the door, like a thief who has crept in through a window, to a band of brethren.

Lastly, we have the fierce rejoinder to the empty boast of Rehoboam, and the definitive disruption of the nation. Jeroboam must have fanned the flame skilfully, or it would not have burst out so quickly. There is no hesitation, nor any regret. The ominous cry, which had been heard before, in Sheba’s abortive revolt, answers Rehoboam with instantaneous and full-throated defiance. Rancorous tribal hatred is audible in it. Long pent up jealousy and dislike of the dynasty of David has got breath at last: ‘To your tents, O Israel! now see to thine own house, David!’

That roar from a thousand voices meant a good deal more than the cowed king’s vain threats did. The angry men who raised it, and were the tools of a crafty conspirator, the frightened courtiers and king who heard it, were alike in their entire oblivion of their true Lord and Monarch. ‘God was not in all their thoughts.’ An enterprise begun in disregard of Him is fated to failure. The only sure foundations of a nation are the fear of the Lord and obedience to His will. If politics have not a religious basis, the Lord will blow upon them, and they will be as stubble.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

Shechem. A national sanctuary (Jos 24:1). Now Nablous, corruption of Neapolis, the (New town) of Vespasian. The site of Abraham’s first altar. Jacob’s first home. Here the tribes met. Here Joseph was buried. All this before Jebus became Jerusalem. Hence the envy of Ephraim for Judah (Isa 11:13). Degraded by new name, Sychar = drunkenness (Isa 28:1-7). Yet here alone in all the world is the Paschal lamb still slain.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 12

Now Rehoboam came to Shechem: and all Israel gathered to Shechem ( 1Ki 12:1 )

Which is just about the center of the land, just about the heart of the country. And they gathered

to make him king. And Jeroboam who was in Egypt, heard of the death of Solomon, (for he had fled to Egypt from Solomon). And they sent and called Jeroboam. And all of the congregation of Israel came to Rehoboam, and they said ( 1Ki 12:1-3 ),

Now look, when your dad was alive, he overtaxed us. And we are just tired of this heavy taxation and we want some tax relief. And so Rehoboam said, “Give me three days to think about it.”

And they said, All right.”

So he went to his older counselors, those men that had counseled his father Solomon.

And he said, “What shall I do?”

And they said, “You better listen to them and give them some tax relief.” What they are saying is correct. The taxes are a burden; they’re too high. The people are going to revolt if you don’t give them some tax relief. And so he went to his young counselors, the young guys that he grew up with.

And he said, “Look, these guys are wanting tax relief. What shall we do?”

And they said, “Don’t give in to their request. If you do, they’re going to only come back for more later. So you got to be firm and you just go out and tell them that they haven’t seen anything yet. That you’re going to even be more severe than your father Solomon.” That actually what they saw under your dad was nothing compared with what’s coming.

So he went out and spoke roughly to them.

He said, “My father chastised you with whips, I’m going to chastise you with scorpions.” And just went on and spoke very roughly to them.

And the people said, “What have we to do with you, house of David?” And they said, “To your tents, O Israel.” And so the tribes of Israel at that point revolted and Rehoboam headed down to Jerusalem, to the safety of Jerusalem when he heard that the people were in an uproar. And so he gathered together an army and the Lord spoke to them and told them not to start a war at that time. And so the kingdom was divided. And this is an important point in the history of the nation.

The Northern Kingdom, as I said, was called Israel. Unfortunately they did not have one decent king. Israel was plagued with idolatry from the beginning. Judah had some good kings, some excellent kings and some bad kings. Israel never had any good kings at all. They went from bad to worst. But at least in Judah they did have some decent kings who did bring reforms there in Judah, but the kingdoms were never united again. The Northern Kingdom fell first because of its idolatry and all. It fell first to Assyria. Later on about 500 B.C. the Southern Kingdom fell to Babylon. Later there was a regathering of course after the Babylonian captivity. But the people of Judah never fully accepted the people of Samaria as true full brothers because the Samaritans could not really bring out their genealogy to prove that they were Jews all the way back.

And even at the time of Christ, there was sharp division between the Jews and the Samaritans. And they were both claiming that they had the right place to worship God; in Samaria where Abraham first built the altar there at Shechem unto the Lord. And they claim that Mount Gerizim was the only mountain on which to worship God. Whereas the Jews were saying, No, God should be worshipped on Mount Moriah there in Jerusalem. And there was this big conflict between them even at the time of Christ.

Now the prophecy of Ezekiel, when he prophesies the rebirth of the nation Israel which we have been privileged to observe, when he prophesies that God was going to take these bones that were dry and scattered and bring them together and put them in the land again and make a nation of them, he said that he saw one stick for Joseph and one stick for Judah. And that actually there would be no longer two but one. And so what God was prophesying there in Ezekiel is that when the children of Israel became a nation again, which they did in 1948, that they would no longer be a divided kingdom. They would no longer be the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom, but they would be just one nation, one king over them all. And thus, of course, is the case today. Israel is a united nation and one ruler ruling over the whole nation but they don’t have the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. That won’t exist again. That is over. That’s a part of the past history. That won’t be repeated because God promised that there would be just one nation in the land.

Of course, Joseph Smith said that one stick for Joseph was actually his name is in the Bible and that one stick was the book of the Mormons that Joseph Smith was going to bring to all the people. If you can believe that, you can believe anything. Read it in its context. I’m surprised that people would go for that.

And so Jeroboam became the king over Israel and he built Shechem. Now Shechem is already there. It means that he built a wall around Shechem and actually the wall of the city of Shechem is, remnants of it are still there today. And he built Penuel.

But he said to himself, The people are apt to be drawn back to the king of Judah, especially if they go down to Jerusalem for the holy days. They go down for the Passover and so forth, their hearts are going to be drawn back after Rehoboam and I’m going to be in trouble. So he made two golden calves and he built altars, one in Dan, which is way up at the uttermost northern part of the kingdom. It’s where the Jordan River comes right out of the ground, beautiful area of Dan. And he set up one of these golden calves in Dan; the other he set up in the southern part there at Bethel, which is of course, just fifteen, twenty miles out of Jerusalem, close by Jerusalem. So in both ends of the kingdom, the southern and the northern part of the kingdom of Israel, he set up these idols with these golden calves and he said, “These are the gods which brought you out of Egypt.”

Now the worship of the calves was something that came from Egypt. You remember when the children of Israel were in the wilderness and Moses had stayed in the mount for such a long time. The people thought that he wasn’t coming back and they came to Aaron and they said, “Make us a God that we might serve it for as what’s happened to this Moses, we don’t know.” And so he had them bring all their golden earrings and all of their gold and they molded this golden calf. And of course, Moses came down from the mountain with the two tables of the law and he heard the dancing and the singing and he saw all these people in their wild orgies as they were worshipping this golden calf. And he took the two tables of stone upon which God had inscribed the Ten Commandments. The first one, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” The second one, “Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image to bow down and worship” and all. And here they were in violation of the first two commandments. They had already broken the law before they even had it. And he threw the stones on the ground and they broke and he then took this golden calf and he ground it into powder, mixed it with water and he made all the people drink it. But he dealt with it very harshly.

But now here is Jeroboam making two golden calves, setting them up with altars and saying, “These are the gods that brought you out of Egypt.” And he turned the hearts of the people away from the Lord. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

1Ki 12:1-3. And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam. The son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) that they sent and called him.

It was a sure sign of great discontent when the people sent for a rebel to be their spokesman.

1Ki 12:3-4. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.

This was a very natural request; these Oriental monarchs took their thrones as by a kind of divine right, and there was a tendency among the people to demand something like a constitution, some regulations by which they should not be so heavily oppressed. I do not know whether they had been oppressed by Solomon or not; certainly, the realm as a whole was greatly enriched under his government; but the wisest ruler must not expect that he will have the uniform love of the people, there will be come discontented ones in every community.

1Ki 12:5. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed.

One commentator says that it is the only sign of wisdom that there is in Rehoboam, that he took three days to consider the answer to this question.

Peradventure, if he had answered it rightly, it would have been better if answered immediately. Still, it is a good rule, when there is an important question before you, to take time to consider it. The mischievous point is that Rehoboam did not wait upon God for guidance in this emergency. Had he been like his grandfather David, those three days would have been spent with God in prayer, and he would have come back, with a greater wisdom than even his father Solomon possessed, to answer the people in this thing.

We often blunder over very ample matters when we speak without asking guidance of God; but in the most intricate circumstances our course will be perfectly clear if we commit our way unto the Lord.

1Ki 12:6-8. And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever. But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him:

He was probably a man forty years of age, and therefore no longer young; but he had all the while been playing the part of a young man. He had not been old in wisdom when he was young in years; it would have been well for him if he had been.

1Ki 12:9-11. And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my fathers loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

Old men are not always wise, and young men are not always wise; he who consults with men only shall yet learn the truth of this verse, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. Among Rehoboams counsellors, the old men had no real principle to guide them, they said to the king, in effect, Just butter these people with soft words, delude and deceive them with the idea that you are going to yield to them, and then, when you once get the reins into your own hands, you can govern the nation as you like. This was a wicked policy; but the young men said to the king, No, no, no; do not pretend that you will listen to the people. There is nothing like putting a bold face on it, and just letting the people know that you will not yield to them. They will be startled by what you say; have you not the authority and example of your father Solomon? Nobody ever dared speak a word of this kind to him, so do you put it down at once, and be bold. There is no principle, you see, about the advice in either case; it is all policy, but the latter policy is sure not to succeed. I counsel you, brother, nay, I will give you no counsel except that I counsel you to take counsel of God. Wait upon him, for he knows what you should do in every difficulty that may arise. If Rehoboam had only had wit enough and grace enough to lay this case before his God he would have given him somewhat of the largeness of heart and the wisdom which he gave to his father Solomon.

1Ki 12:12-15. So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old mens counsel that they gave him; and spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD,

The great, deep, mysterious providence of God was quietly working even behind the folly and the domineering pride of this foolish man.

1Ki 12:15-16. That he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the Son of Nebat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents.

He that speaks roughly must expect to be answered roughly. Let us learn from this incident as one might who sees the warning light of a beacon, and tacks his ship to avoid the rock on which it is placed.

1Ki 12:17-18. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute;

Having made trouble, the king tried to make piece. He selected one of the ancient officers of his father Solomon to be his ambassador, but he selected the very worst that he could have found, Adoram, who was over the tribute. The man who had been a leader in exactions from the people, or who had been thought to be so, was not the one to act as peace-maker.

1Ki 12:18-20. And all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.

See what mischief may be done by one foolish man; and let me add, see what evil may come of the ill conduct of a wise man. Some think that Rehoboam was Solomons only son, though he had a multitude of wives. That I cannot tell: but it is a singular thing that so wise a man should have but one son mentioned here, and that he should be such a foolish one. Yet what could be expected to come out of such a family as Solomons was? He whose own house is so disorderly as his was, must expect that those who come after him will be no better than they should be. Blessed is that home where the Lord is the Master, where his law is loved, and his word is obeyed.

1Ki 12:21-24. And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD.

It is a very striking fact that this one prophet did but speak in Gods name, and that vast host disbanded in obedience to his word. It gives us some hope concerning Rehoboam, yet we cannot be sure that it was he who was thus obedient to the prophet. The people may have been better than their king; at any rate, they did not fight against their brethren, but they went their way. Oh, that Gods servants in these days could speak with anything like such power as Shemaiah possessed!

1Ki 12:25-27. Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.

Jeroboam is moved by policy, you see. It is very hard, I believe, to be a ruler over men, and yet to be a servant of God. There seems to be connected with politics in every country something that besmears the mind, and defiles the hand that touches it. The king of Judah had but little wit, and this king of Israel has too much cunning; he is a far-seeing man, and perceives that, if the people go up to Jerusalem to worship, they may by-and-by return to their allegiance to the house of David.

1Ki 12:28. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Truly, history repeats itself, only, if it be bad history, it is apt to grow worse. Behold thy gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. This is almost exactly what they said in Aarons days, when he made the ox which Scripture sarcastically calls a calf, the Egyptian image of strength. Jeroboam makes not merely one calf, but two; and he speaks of them in nearly the same language as they used concerning the golden calf in the wilderness: Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

1Ki 12:29-30. And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.

I suppose that Jeroboam did not mean to draw them away from worshipping Jehovah; but he would have Jehovah worshipped under some visible image, and not according to the rule which God had laid down. That is just where mischief often begins, both in the church and in the world. Men are willing to worship God if they are allowed to have a ritual and symbols which they have themselves devised; so, instead of the divine simplicity of the New Testament, they have many things added, things to please the taste, aesthetic, beautiful, sensuous; all of which take off the mind from that sublime worship of the invisible God which alone can be acceptable before him. It is not for us to determine how we will worship God; we are to worship him after his own manner, for his commandments are still in force: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them. Well, but the cross, someone says, surely that is a truly venerable symbol? Let it be as venerable as you please; but we must not use it in divine worship. The ox was supposed to set forth strength; surely it was an admirable emblem of the Almighty, yet God pours contempt upon it when he bids his inspired servants to speak of it as the image of an ox that eateth grass, as if that could be any symbol of the Most High! This thing became a sin.

1Ki 12:31. And, he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.

For the sons of Levi went over to Judah, and remained faithful to God; and the better sort of people probably dreaded to assume the office to which God had called the sons of Levi, and none would undertake it but the very lowest of the people.

1Ki 12:32. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah,

He shifted the month, but retained the day, the fifteenth day of the eighth month instead of the seventh. That was quite unimportant, say some. I do not agree with them, for nothing is unimportant that has to do with the law of Gods house. Disobedience may be more plainly seen in some of the non-essentials than in an essential thing. At all events, we have no right to alter jot or tittle of the divine command.

1Ki 12:32-33. And he offered upon the altar. So did he in Beth-el, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Beth-el the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart;

It is a strong condemnation of anything in religion if it be devised by a mans own heart. We are to do what God bids us, as God bids us, when God bids us, and because God bids us; but that which is merely of our own free will, ordained and manufactured by ourselves, is practically the worship of ourselves, and not the worship of God.

1Ki 12:33. And ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.

Thus Israel was led astray at the very beginning. She came to the turning of the roads, and took the wrong course, and she went from bad to worse. God save all of us from following her evil example, but may we all serve the one living and true God, for our Lord Jesus Christs sake! Amen.

This exposition consisted of readings from 1Ki 11:40-43; 1 Kings 12.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

In this and the four following chapters we have the central section of this Book recording the tragedy of the break-up of the nation and the degradation of the people. It covers a period of about sixty years, from the disruption after the death of Solomon to the corruption of Ahab’s reign and the coming of Elijah.

The seed of strife had long been growing, as we have seen. The occasion of the actual division arose on the human side, with Rehoboam’s accession and Jeroboam’s return to the country. These two men were utterly unworthy, as the folly of the first and the sin of the latter, make manifest. Rehoboam was proud and despotic. His asking for advice was a farce. A man with a prejudice is sure to follow advice which ministers thereto. This despotism led to Jeroboam’s protest, and so ultimately to the rending of the kingdom. The sin of Jeroboam which cursed the whole later history of the people was due to his fear and expressed itself in a professed desire to make worship easy for them by establishing a new center.

The matter of chief interest in the story is the vision granted of God sitting high enthroned above human failure, making even the wrath of men to praise Him as He guided the sinning people toward the realization of His own purposes.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Wise Kings Foolish Son

1Ki 11:41-43; 1Ki 12:1-11

Solomons reign had been splendid but very oppressive, and it was reasonable to ask for some relief. The people felt that the accession of the new king gave them their opportunity, and apparently they took the first step in this momentous crisis. We are expressly told that Rehoboam came to Shechem. If this mighty gathering had been called by himself or his court, the people would have had to come to him at Jerusalem. Here was the muttering of the rising storm.

There was much wisdom in the counsel of the older men: Serve them then they will be thy servants forever, This principle underlay the sacrifice of Calvary. Thou art worthy to take the book, for thou wast slain, Rev 5:9. It is because Jesus girded Himself with humility and washed our sins in His own precious blood, that He has ascended to the throne, not only of God, but of our hearts and lives. And He has taught us, that whosoever would become great must begin by being the servant of all. The proud and lofty in this world are served often enough with the eye-service that gives superficial obedience for wages and rewards, Eph 6:6, but what is this compared with that which is yielded by gratitude and love!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Rehoboam

(Liberator, or enlarger, of the people.)

(1Ki 12:1-24; 14:21-31; 2 Chron. 10-12)

Contemporary Prophet, Shemaiah.

In the multitude of people is the kings honor:but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince.-Pro 14:28.

Rehoboam was not what we call a strong character. He was, in the beginning of his reign at least, as his own son Abijah said to Jeroboam, young (inexperienced) and faint-hearted, and did not show himself strong against the troublers of his kingdom (2Ch 13:7, N. Tr.). Why Solomon should have chosen him as his successor is not clear. It is difficult to believe that he had no other sons; yet it is a fact that Rehoboam is the only one mentioned (1Ch 3:10). His father seems to have had misgivings concerning his ability to rule the kingdom (see Ecc 2:18, 19; 4:13-16, N. Tr.). And it was probably not a question of favoritism; for Pharaohs daughter, and not Naamah the Ammonitess (Rehoboams mother), appears to have been his preferred wife. But if Rehoboam was his only son, he had no choice; so we read, Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead. Weakness and vacillation marked his reign from the beginning. His going to Shechem to be crowned was evidently a concession to conciliate the already disaffected tribes to the north. He might have succeeded in his efforts to allay the dissatisfaction caused by the enforced levy of labor by his father (see 1Ki 11:28), had he wisely and humbly heeded the advice of the aged men who had been his fathers honored counselors. They, from long experience, knew the temper of the people well; and in petitioning for the lightening of their burdens, they were only doing what any people not reduced to the condition of slavery, or serfdom, might have asked. And had the newly crowned king granted them their reasonable demands, and been kind to them, and pleased them, and spoken good words to them, they would, as the old cabinet ministers said, have been his loyal subjects forever. But he forsook their wise counsels. Influenced by a handful of callow novices and young court favorites, who, like himself, thought more of the rights of the king than of his responsibility to govern righteously he replied with as rash and insolent a speech as was, perhaps, ever uttered from the throne to a civilized nation. The outraged people answer in the same spirit as the king; and we have the sad, portentous cry, What portion have we in David? and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse:every man to your tents, O Israel:and now, David, see to thine own house. (See also 2Sa 20:1.)

Though truly thankful to God that we are privileged to live under a form of government which gives us fullest freedom, we have no quarrel with absolute monarchy. But while God enjoins subjection to the powers that be, tyranny over the souls and bodies of men is nowhere countenanced in His word; and rulers who attempt it must learn the results to their cost. There are many proofs of this in Scripture, as in history. Government is of God, and therefore of divine appointment; but Gods frown is upon all abuse of power.

Rehoboam found it hard to believe that the ten tribes had really refused his yoke. He flattered himself, no doubt, that they would not dare to rebel against his authority. It could not be possible, he might think, that these provincials should not readily and meekly submit to his chastening with scorpions. So he confidently sent to them Hadoram to collect the imposed assessment. This ill-advised act brings matters to a crisis, and the old collector-general, who had served in this office under his father Solomon and his grandfather David is stoned by the exasperated people. So the king, who had boasted so haughtily that his little finger should be thicker than his fathers loins, ingloriously made speed to get him up to his chariot to flee to Jerusalem.

It must have been evident to him now that the rebellion was a very real and formidable one, and not a mere passing wave of discontent that would quickly die away of itself and be forgotten. But such an immense loss, such terrible results occurring so unexpectedly, are not so easily submitted to. Force may yet avail. There is the army, one hundred and eighty thousand strong:these malcontents should soon be made to feel the effect of its invincible power. Might must make right, if right cannot be demonstrated in any other way. But the God of peace, who loves His people even when misguided and in error, warns the king of Judah (note the intentional limit of his title, 2Ch 11:3) by the word of the man of God, Shemaiah, saying, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren:return every man to his house; for this thing is from Me.

Under the government of God this division of the kingdom was the punishment of the sins of Solomon (1Ki 11:33), occasioned by the folly of Rehoboam; it must therefore stand. To fight, then, to bring back the unity of the nation, good as the purpose might seem, was to fight against God. Reho-boam ought to have been thankful that Gods love to David had left him even two tribes. And he appears to have been, for they obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned from going against Jeroboam. He now betakes himself to make sure what had been left him. He built, or garrisoned, fifteen cities within his decreased territory, and he fortified the strong holds, and put captains in them, and store of victuals, and of oil and wine. And in every several city he put shields and spears, and made them exceeding strong. The successful rebel may sometimes turn invader, and Rehoboam (wiser now) will guard against this. There was war between him and the insurrectionist leader Jeroboam all their days, and the son of Solomon had to guard vigilantly what remained to him.

The priests and Levites remained faithful to Jehovah, to His house and worship at Jerusalem, and to the house of David, which was by the election of God the royal one. They left the land of Israel, to dwell in Judah and Jerusalem. Others too, who had set their hearts to seek the God of Israel, deserted the cause of the secessionists, and flocked to Rehoboams standard. For three years all went well, and they walked in the way of David and Solomon. But their goodness (like all that is of the creature merely) was as the early dew and like the morning cloud, and passed quickly away. Subdued, no doubt, and humbled, by the loss of the greater portion of his kingdom, Rehoboam walked for a time in fear and dependence. But alas, even serious lessons like this are soon forgotten by most, and before five years had passed both king and people had lapsed so far into idolatry as to be brought to the very verge of apostasy from Jehovah. And Judah, we read, did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites (men consecrated to impurity) in the land:and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel (1Ki 14:22-24).

And for this cause God sent Shishak king of Egypt against them. Solomon had joined affinity with Pharaoh by taking his daughter to wife; and whether this was merely to please himself, or that he expected to strengthen his kingdom by an alliance with so powerful a country, it all comes to naught, as do all such expedients where Gods word is disobeyed or ignored. Shishak overthrew Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, thus ending that dynasty, and Shishak became the new king, who knew not Solomon, nor his successor. Influenced probably by Jeroboam, he marched against Jerusalem with a vast army of twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen, besides an innumerable host of footmen. Realizing the utter hopelessness of his position, and not having faith in God, Rehoboam offered no resistance to the advance of Shishak. Huddled with the princes of Judah at Jerusalem, he awaited with them, in fear of his life, the coming of the Egyptian army.

It is now Gods time to speak to their consciences; and Shemaiah the prophet appeared before them with this message of conviction:Thus saith the Lord, Ye have forsaken Me, and therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak. They humbled themselves, then, and said, The Lord is righteous; and a partial deliverance was promised them. God says, I will not destroy them. The princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves, says the Word. The princes took the lead, it would seem (from their being mentioned first), in this humiliating, yet becoming, confession; the king was slower, the roots of his former haughtiness still lingering unjudged within his heart.

Note what God says: I will not destroy them. Shishak was only His whip, like the Assyrian at a later date, whom God, by His prophet Isaiah, calls the rod of Mine anger, and a razor that is hired. It is necessary, for blessing, in calamities like these, to see beyond the instrument, and know the hand that uses it. But though their lives were spared, they must become servants (tributary) to Shishak, That they may know, God says, My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries. Where true submission is, the Lords yoke is easy; and if His saints refuse to wear it, they must learn by humiliating and painful experience what the yoke of the enemy is like. So Shishak took away all the temple treasures, and those of the royal palace. He also took with him the five hundred shields of gold that Solomon had made; and Rehoboam made in their stead shields of bronze, and with these pathetically tried to keep up former appearances. It is like souls, who, when despoiled of their freshness and power by the enemy, laboriously endeavor to keep up an outward appearance of spiritual prosperity; or, like a fallen church, shorn of its strength, and robbed of its purity, seeking to hide its helplessness, and cover its nakedness, with the tinsel of ritualism, spurious revivalism, union, and anything that promises to give them some appearance of justification for saying, I am rich, and increased with goods, etc.

There is little more to say of Rehoboam. Whatever was in his fathers mind when naming him Liberator, or Enlarger of the people, he failed utterly to become either. He enslaved the nation to Shishak by his sins, and decreased the numerical strength of his kingdom by more than three millions through his folly at the very outset of his reign. He followed his fathers shameful example in taking many wives. He displayed wisdom, however, in distributing his sons over the countries of Judah and Benjamin, placing them in the garrison towns, and providing them food in abundance. He probably remembered and was desirous to avoid such scenes as had occurred at the close of his grandfather Davids life in connection with his sons. Would God that Christians had always as much spiritual wisdom as Rehoboam manifested natural wisdom in this. Were Gods people well fed with truth, and well taken up with the affairs of Christ in the various services of His kingdom, there would be less strife among us. But alas, it is still too often true that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light, Rehoboams wisdom was rewarded when, at the end of his seventeen years reign, his son Abijah quietly assumed the crown without opposition from his many brethren.

Rehoboam died at the age of fifty-eight. The Spirits last comment on his character is significant:And he did evil because he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord. There we are told in a single sentence the whole secret of his failure, both as king of Judah, and servant of Jehovah, who gave him this exalted position, he applied not his heart to seek Jehovah. May God in His grace, help us to apply our hearts to seek first and always His kingdom and righteousness. Only so shall we be kept from evil, and preserved from making the record of our lives read anything like Rehoboams-one sad succession of decline and failure.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

1Ki 12:21-24

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 chap. xi. we are distinctly told that a prophet stirred up those thoughts in the mind of Jeroboam which led him to rise against Solomon. The prophet is a true witness for the Lord God of Israel. He announces an eternal, unchangeable law. It had been declared that idolatry must produce degradation and division in the land. Solomon had introduced the worship of visible things. The very ground of the unity of the nation had been taken away, its acknowledgment of one Lord. A perpetual growth of internal corruption, of internal division, would follow, falsehood spreading in the vitals of the people, with nothing to remind them that it was falsehood. Such a state of things is incon ceivable if we suppose that human beings are as much under a Divine order as natural things are. That order must vindicate itself, must show what it is; the punishment of the transgression must be the way of proclaiming the principle which has been transgressed.

II. The charge which is brought against Jeroboam of making Israel to sin is scarcely intelligible if we forget that his kingdom stood like that which was in Jerusalem: upon the promise and covenant of God. He had a right to believe that the God of Abraham and of Isaac, of David and of Solomon, would be with him, and would establish for him a sure house. He had a right to live and act upon this conviction. His sin was that he did not act upon it. He did not trust the living God. He thought, not that his kingdom stood on a Divine foundation, but that it was to be upheld by certain Divine props and sanctions. He wanted a god as the support of his authority; what god he cared very little. His thoughts were very natural and very sagacious. Jerusalem was not merely the capital of Rehoboam; it was the seat of God’s temple. If the people had the bond of a common worship, they might desire the bond of a common kingdom. To prevent the second wish, you must extinguish the first.

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.

F. D. Maurice, The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, p. 89.

References: 1Ki 12:25-33.-W. G. Horder, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 62; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 62; Parker, Fountain, Jan. nth, 1877. 1Ki 12:28.-J. D. Kelly, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 375; Bishop Temple, Rugby Sermons, 2nd series, p. 79. 1Ki 12-Parker, vol. vii., pp. 349, 354. 1Ki 13:1-10.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 63.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

III. THE DIVIDED KINGDOM

1. Rehoboam and the Revolt of the Ten Tribes

CHAPTER 12

1. The revolt of the northern tribes (1Ki 12:1-20)

2. The threatening war averted (1Ki 12:21-24)

3. Jeroboams wicked schemes (1Ki 12:25-33)

Rehoboam (enlarger of the people) is the only son of Solomon mentioned in the Bible (1Ch 3:10). Ecc 2:18-19; Ecc 4:13-16 seem to give a hint that his father was fearful about his reign in his stead. In 2Ch 10:13 we find the history of Rehoboam more fully, which we follow in the annotations of that book. He was the son of the Ammonitess Naamah. During the first three years he was outwardly faithful, but after that he drifted like his father into idolatry and its moral evils (1Ki 14:23-24; 2Ch 11:13-17). He forsook the law of the Lord and the people followed him (2Ch 12:1). The polygamous tendency of his father and grandfather were also indulged by him (2Ch 11:21). Jeroboam who had fled into Egypt (11:40) was recalled and the history of the revolt follows. Jeroboam was made king over the ten tribes, while Rehoboam reigned over Judah. What took place was from the Lord that He might perform His saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat (12:15). The disruption of the kingdom had taken place. Up to the deportation of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser (722 B.C.) covers 253 years. During that time thirteen kings reigned over Judah and twenty over the ten tribes; there were also two periods of lawlessness. The apostasy of the ten-tribe kingdom was complete; none of their kings served the Lord. Under Ahab and his two sons Ahaziah and Joram the Baal worship became universal. It was different with the kings of Judah. A number of them were God-fearing (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah and Josiah). Others were wicked blasphemers as we shall see from their history. It is also noteworthy that the reign of the wicked kings was shorter than the reign of those who feared the Lord.

After the stoning of Adoram, Rehoboams collector, Rehoboam fled to Jerusalem and gathered an army from Judah and Benjamin to fight against Israel to bring back the kingdom to the son of Solomon. Shemaiah (heard of Jehovah), a man of God, brought the message from the Lord not to fight against Israel. They were obedient and the war was averted. Many Israelites, who were true to Jehovah, as well as all the priests and Levites remained in the Kingdom of Judah. (As failure had come in, prophecy at once reappears. Shemaiah must have been a very courageous man to stand in face of a gathered army of 180,000 men, an angry king and an angry people and declare a message which must have been decidedly unwelcome. And one cannot but admire the gracious submission of king and people.)

Jeroboam made Shechem his capital. He also built the ancient Penuel (the face of God, Gen 32:30; Jdg 8:8), but he did not meet the Lord there like Jacob. Then the step was done which precipitated idolatry. To protect his kingdom and keep the people back from the true worship of Jehovah, he placed, with the consent of the people, in Dan and Beth-el on the northern and southern boundaries of his kingdom, two calves of gold. Thus with an unspeakable blasphemy he said: It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. The lowest class of the people were chosen as priests. Then he also offered sacrifices unto the calves that he had made. All was devised of his own heart and Gods Word was completely set aside. It corresponds to the great apostasy of Romanism with its wicked, blasphemous rites.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Rehoboam

called Roboam. Mat 1:7.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Rehoboam: 1Ki 11:43, 2Ch 10:1-19

Shechem: Gen 12:6, Sichem, Gen 33:18, Gen 33:19, Jos 20:7, Jos 24:1, Jos 24:32, Jdg 9:1, Psa 60:6, Act 7:16, Sychem

Reciprocal: Jos 17:7 – Shechem Jos 21:21 – Shechem Jdg 9:6 – plain 1Ki 12:25 – Shechem 2Ki 21:24 – made Josiah Pro 11:14 – General Jer 41:5 – Shechem Mat 1:7 – Roboam Mat 2:20 – for

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

EARLY DAYS OF TWO KINGDOMS

CAUSE OF THE DIVISION (1Ki 12:1-25)

1Ki 12:2-4 look as though there were a preconcerted purpose to revolt, and yet who can tell what a different history might have followed had the new king heeded wiser counsel?

Note the reason of the protest, which was not Solomons idolatry and the heathenism he introduced, but their financial burdens; their civil oppression, rather than their religious wrongs. It is still so, and political reform looks only on the surface and never takes into account the root of difficulties. Had Solomon kept true to God the people would not have been oppressed; but they were blinded to this because they partook of his sins. They, too, loved the heathen worship and only murmured at its cost.

And yet there was an overruling cause why Rehoboam hearkened to the younger men, for God had intended to inflict punishment (1Ki 12:15).

Rehoboam seems to have been incredulous as to the reality of the revolt; but if so, what event opened his eyes (1Ki 12:18)? What action is now taken by him (1Ki 12:21), and why is it brought to a standstill (1Ki 12:23-25).

JEROBOAMS FOLLY (1Ki 12:26-33)

To build Shechem and Penuel meant probably to fortify them as protection from attack (1Ki 12:25).

Had Jeroboam ground for thinking as is recorded in 1Ki 12:26-27? (Compare 1Ki 11:37-38.) He had become familiar with calf worship in Egypt (1Ki 12:28), but in any event Solomon had prepared the people thus to be led astray.

Notice that it was for political reasons Jeroboam did this (1Ki 12:27). He had no intention of throwing off the yoke of Jehovah altogether, but was foolish enough to think He could be worshipped in one way as well as another. Why was he compelled to make priests from among all the people? (Compare again 2Ch 11:12-13.) What change did he make as to the time of the feast of tabernacles? (Compare 1Ki 12:32 with Lev 23:33-34.) Where did he get the idea (1Ki 12:33)?

A PRELIMINARY WARNING (1 Kings 13)

The story of this chapter, although containing supernatural wonders, is in the recital and meaning very plain. Jeroboam has his chance to repent and turn to the Lord if he will, but his heart is set to do evil.

No one knows the name of the prophet (1Ki 13:1) who, although a man of God, acted so unworthily as to be denied the honor of its record. Note the prophecy he uttered and compare its fulfillment, over three hundred years later, in 2Ki 23:15-16. This has been cited as one of the most remarkable prophecies in Holy Writ, whose definiteness and minuteness stand in marked contrast to the obscure oracles of the heathen. What sign was given to its ultimate fulfillment (1Ki 13:3)? What personal judgment fell on the king and why (1Ki 13:4)? Do you think he was genuine in his invitation (1Ki 13:7)?

And the prophet referred to in the subsequent verses, if he were ever a servant of the Lord, surely he was a castaway now (1Co 9:27). What a warning his conduct brings before Christian workers today! Could his motive have been to curry favor with the King? How many supernatural events can be counted in 1Ki 13:20-29? (Compare 2Ki 23:15-18.)

A FINAL JUDGMENT (1Ki 14:1-20)

Taking 1Ki 14:1-2 together, how do they reveal Jeroboams hypocrisy, political caution, fear and ignorance?

The Lords commendation of David as contrasted with Jeroboam (1Ki 14:8) is to be considered in the light of the pure worship the former maintained in accordance with the divine law. It does not mean that David never sinned, although, of course, even in that he differed from Jeroboam because he repented of his sin. The phrase in 1Ki 14:10 refers to a man child and is so rendered in the Revised Version.

What good was found in Abijah (1Ki 14:13) is not stated, but doubtless he was not in sympathy with all his fathers wickedness and idolatry.

Note the earliest prediction of the captivity of Israel by the Assyrians as it subsequently came to pass (1Ki 14:15 compared with 2Ki 17:6).

REHOBOAMS INIQUITY AND ITS RESULT (1Ki 14:21-31)

What allusion (1Ki 14:21) furnishes a hint to the reason of Rehoboams apostasy (1Ki 14:22-24)? What judgment falls on him and his people (1Ki 14:25-26)?

We should not misunderstand the book of the chronicles (1Ki 14:29), as meaning the book of the Old Testament bearing that name, but only one of the customary records of the kings. Neither should we imagine verse 30 to be a contradiction of 1Ki 12:21-24, as the former (1Ki 14:30) may refer to skirmishes in contrast with an aggressive war of conquest.

QUESTIONS

1. were the people of Israel any more religious and God-fearing than their first king?

2. Rehearse the story of Gods relation to the division of the kingdom.

3. Did Jeroboam outwardly break the first or second commandment?

4. What king of Judah was named by the Lord over three hundred years before his birth?

5. Quote 1Co 9:27.

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

1Ki 12:1. Rehoboam went to Shechem With a view to be there declared Solomons successor by the people, and made king. It does not appear that he called the people thither, but went thither because they had prevented him, and pitched upon that place rather than upon Jerusalem, because it was most convenient for all, being in the centre of the kingdom; and because, as it was in the potent tribe of Ephraim, they supposed they might there more securely propose their grievances, which they were resolved to do, and use a greater freedom of speech than they could at Jerusalem, where the family of David was more powerful, more numerous, and better supported. And it is not improbable but Jeroboam had a hand in this, and that it was partly at least by his management, or that of some of his friends, who durst not, perhaps, venture themselves at Jerusalem, that this city was made choice of as a place of general convention. The glory of the kingdom of Israel was in its height and perfection in Solomons reign. It was long in coming to it, but it soon declined and began to sink and wither under Rehoboam his successor, as we find in this chapter, in which we see the kingdom divided, and thereby weakened, and made little in comparison of what it had been. Solomon probably supposed that by taking to himself seven hundred wives that were princesses, he should greatly strengthen his power, and enlarge his kingdom; and that from them and his three hundred concubines he should have a numerous progeny to perpetuate that power and dominion, in all its extent, to the latest generations. But if so, he was sadly disappointed: of these thousand women, it appears, he had but one son, and he a fool! and two daughters, mentioned 1Ki 4:11; 1Ki 4:15, to bear up his name, and continue his race. Sin, says Henry, is an ill way of building up a family.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Ki 12:1. Shechem. This city was famed for mischief. Here Dinah was ruined, and the men slaughtered. Here Joseph was sold, and now the ten tribes revolted.

1Ki 12:4. Thy father made our yoke grievous, by tribute and taxes. This was true; but the glory and commerce of the kingdom repaid them five for one.

1Ki 12:14. I will chastise you with scorpions. There is a passage in Pliny, lib. 7:56, in which bunches of knotty thorns, used as Gideon to teach the men of Succoth, are put for scorpions, whose stings are in their tails.

1Ki 12:28. Two calves of gold. The gloss to blind the people was a perversion of Psa 81:10. These be thy gods which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; whereas the text says that God brought them out. The truth is, Jeroboam ordained priests for the high places, and for devils, and for the calves. 2Ch 11:15. He could believe the Lord when he promised him the ten tribes, but he could not trust the Lord to defend the kingdom.

1Ki 12:29. In Bethel, only four or five miles from Jerusalem.In Dan Laish, the colony of Dan, in the north-east point, and the other in sight of the temple. Judges 18. The latter was very provoking.

1Ki 12:31. A house of high places. As the temple was the cathedral of the synagogues, so this was to the high places the mother synagogue of Satan and the sodomites.

REFLECTIONS.

We now come to the wane of Solomons glory, and the partial fall of Davids house. His grandsons, now illustrious princes, had lost sight of the sires piety, and rioted in voluptuous pleasures. God therefore was resolved to humble their pride; and mark how this was brought about, while those princes dreamed of nothing but perfect safety and repose. A claim was made for the removal of some oppressive imposts, which had probably been laid on with the promise of a speedy remission. While the temple was building for the glory of God, while the palaces were rising as ornaments to the throne, and while the frontiers were fortifying for the safety of the empire, no one dreamed of complaints. But when the national works are accomplished, the minister of finance finds it very difficult to remove one tax without imposing another, for the scale of national establishments generally exceeds the public revenues.

The elders, before they urged their claims, took care to recal Jeroboam from Egypt, whom they had applauded as a patriot, and revered as merit in exile. This measure was adopted that Jeroboam might aid them by his counsel, and embolden them to address the new king in a firm tone. But Jeroboam, confident that God had given him the ten tribes, was not wanting to avail himself of the fermentation, to aim directly at the throne. Such was the critical posture of affairs, when Rehoboam went to Shechem to receive the crown.

The next object which strikes us is, the extraordinary folly and infatuation of this prince. He was, during life, the heir apparent. He was now about forty years of age; yet he had neglected to cultivate, by engaging civilities and impartial promotions, that good understanding with the heads of the several tribes, essential to make the wheels of government move with ease. The spirit of independence in those tribes being coval with their existence, it ought to have been managed, not insulted. But this prince, it would seem, had been accustomed to flattery, to indulgence, and in every thing to have his own way. Unacquainted with himself and with human nature, he had habituated himself to despise the proverbs of his sire, and to follow passion and inexperience. Hence those extravagant notions of the royal prerogative. Hence the contempt he showed to the hoary senate of his sire, and the obstinate adherence to the haughty advice of companions who flattered the royal passion. Hence that revolting answer to the plaintive but intrepid elders: My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with thorns; for so it is often read. Hence that most preposterous act of sending Aduram to quell the tumult, whose office as minister of finance rendered him the most obnoxious man in the kingdom. Hence also that disgraceful flight in his chariot, destitute of a crown, and pursued with the curses of a revolted people. The stability of the throne does not consist in old forms, but to live and reign in the hearts of a loyal people.

From the extraordinary folly of Rehoboam, we turn our views to an extreme, equally fatal in the policy of Jeroboam. This man was designated as the scourge of Davids house by revelation: chap. 11. He had the offer of Davids covenant on condition of Davids fidelity. But now, elated to find himself on the throne, and gratified to find the reins of government in his hands, he presumed to trust in an arm of flesh, rather than rely on his fathers God. His eyes, familiar with the Apis or ox, adored at Memphis and at Hierapolis, and confident that one of the cherubim in the Holy of Holies had a face like an ox, Eze 1:10, he dared to establish two calves in his own country. To this he was much emboldened, no doubt, by the persecution and apostasy of Solomon; but the most weighty consideration was the disposition of his more pious subjects, still to worship at Jerusalem. He feared, lest by spending a few days in the temple three times a year, they should gradually revert to the house of David. Hence he pleaded the universality of JEHOVAHS presence; and to give the greater sanctity to his scheme, he placed one calf in Bethel, famed as a place dear to heaven because of Jacobs vision; the other in Dan Laish, the hoary seat of idolatry, because of the plundered teraphim and seraphim of Micah. Judges 18. To be unencumbered in his humour he banished all the priests and levites, noble by birth, and made priests of such as were willing. The erection of those idols was a great sin; it likened the Deity to a calf that eateth grass. It was a most presumptuous sin, because by this transgression the whole nation had once been brought to the verge of destruction. Exodus 33. It was nevertheless deemed consummate policy for the safety of the kingdom, though it proved the total destruction of Jeroboams house, and ultimately the destruction of the ten revolted tribes. How vain then are all attempts to seek safety out of the Lords covenant protection. Above all, how daring and impious is it for a mortal man to abuse religion, by making it subservient to his interest; or to attempt innovations, not to say subversions, of the religion revealed from above!

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Ki 12:1-24. The Revolt of the Northern Tribes.It is doubtful whether this section is Judan or not. It bears some resemblance to 2 Samuel 9-20, and the parts of 1 K. which seem to be a continuation of that history. On the other hand it is not favourable to the house of David, The writer assumes, that Israel has a right to elect a king, and that Solomon could not, like David, have nominated his successor. This passage may be an extract from a northern source, perhaps the chronicles of the kings of Israel. Difficulty is occasioned by the LXX additions, and has to be discussed in connexion with 1 Kings 12, 14. Evidently Jeroboams rebellion against Solomon was more serious than is implied in 11, and the prestige of his throne had suffered considerably.

Shechem.At the end of Solomons reign the prestige of the older scenes in Israels history seems to have revived. Jerusalem is no longer the important centre, and Ahijah, the prophet of the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh, is the religious leader. Shechem (p. 30) was connected with the names of Abraham (Gen 12:6), Jacob (Gen 32:18), Joshua (Jos 24:1), Gideon, whose son Abimelech was the first Israelite to assume the title of king (Jdg 9:6). It was the site of Abrahams first altar, and of the joint worship of Baal-berith (Lord of the Covenant) by the Israelites and Canaanites (Jdg 8:33). Joseph was buried here (Jos 24:32), and it was one of the cities of refuge. It continued to be regarded as a holy place for many years, and on the neighbouring Mount Gerizim the Samaritans built their temple. Its political importance declined after the building of Samaria; but in the later days of the monarchy the Deuteronomist recognises it as the scene of the solemn recitation of the blessings and curses of the Law (Deu 27:12, Jos 8:33). According to 1Ki 14:21, Rehoboam ascended the throne at the mature age of forty. The Vatican MS. of the LXX in 1Ki 14:24 a says he was only sixteen. This is more probable. The old men advise the king to use crafty moderation (1Ki 12:6). A few concessions and gracious words would win a people, and make a monarch able to do what he chose. The young men believed that a haughty and threatening demeanour would best become the heir of the great Solomon. They did not understand the intensity of the hatred felt by the Israelite people for forced labour. The war cry of Israel, What portion have we, etc., was uttered when Sheba the son of Bichri raised a revolt against David (2Sa 20:1). The revolt of the ten tribes was remembered two centuries later as the worst misfortune which had ever fallen upon the house of David (Isa 7:17). In the additional account of Jeroboam in the LXX (1Ki 12:24) it is Shemaiah (1Ki 12:22) the Enlamite, and not Ahijah who gives the pieces of the garment to Jeroboam.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE TEN TRIBES REBEL

(vs.1-24)

Rehoboam went to Shechem for his inauguration as king of Israel (v.1). Jereboam, in Egypt, received word quickly of Solomon’s death, and his friends in Israel sent to have him recalled from Egypt. Thus they had a capable leader to represent the cause of the majority in Israel before Rehoboam.

Jereboam and the other representatives of Israel came to Rehoboam as soon as he had been made king. They had a serious request. They said Solomon had made their yoke heavy. How sad a comment on the character of Solomon! He was a king of great wealth, but wealthy rulers will nearly always use strong means to increase their wealth instead of using it for the alleviation of the hardships of the people. Solomon records that his mother told him to “open your mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy” (Pro 31:9). But he not only ignored his mother’s counsel: he went so far as to oppress the poor and needy.

Jereboam and others with him requested that Rehoboam would lighten the burdensome service of Solomon, and if so they would willingly serve Rehoboam (v.4). This was certainly a reasonable request and at the time Rehoboam wisely asked that they come back again in three days to receive an answer (v.5). It was right that he should discus this suggestion with his council.

Rehoboam received good counsel from the elders who were in Solomon’s court, telling him that if he would be considerate of this request of the people and would speak good words to them, they would be his servants forever (v.6). This was only sensible and he ought to have immediately accepted their advice. But he made the fatal blunder of seeking advice from young men with whom he had grown up.

These young men, having some authority in government, wanted to exert that authority as cruel overlords of the people. They counseled Rehoboam to tell the people he would be more demanding than his father, and though admitting that his father had chastised the people with whips, Rehoboam would chastise them with scourges, for his little finger would be thicker than his father’s waist.

Though Solomon had been demanding, he was wiser than to speak in this cruel way to the people. But Rehoboam did not have the wisdom of his father. He and the young men ought to have realized they could not get away with such arrogant treatment of the people. Rehoboam carried out the advice of the young men when Jereboam and the people returned for his answer. He haughtily told them that he would add to the heavy yoke that Solomon had imposed on them and would chastise them with scourges (vs.14-15).

Thus the king refused to even consider the needs of the people. But we know that God in His great wisdom was directing matters in this way in order to carry out the truth of His word to Jereboam (v.15). Certainly it was not pleasing to God that Rehoboam should answer the people in the cruel way he did, but God was sovereignly working for His own glory.

Since God had told Jereboam that he would be given ten tribes, Jereboam and his followers had no difficulty in boldly answering Rehoboam by telling him, “What share have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents. 0 Israel! Now, see to your own house, 0 David” (v.16). They immediately announced a division among brothers. This division was accomplished with no delay, but it has continued throughout the centuries until now, and will not be healed until the Lord Jesus comes in power and glory at the end of the Great Tribulation. In the counsels of God Israel is one nation, indivisible, but in practice the nation has been totally inconsistent with God’s plan for her. Such has been sadly true in the history of the Church of God on earth also. Though there is only “one body” (Eph 4:4), yet in practical testimony there are many bodies of professing Christians, which is a shameful contradiction to our perfect unity “in Christ.”

Rehoboam reigned over the Israelites in Judah, and, considering it his right to exact taxes from the rest of Israel, he sent Adoram who was over the department of revenue to collect these taxes. But Israel stoned him to death. When Rehoboam heard this, he left Shechem and fled to Jerusalem (v.18).

The condition of all Israel had greatly deteriorated during the days of Solomon, which was to be expected when Solomon sunk down to the level of worshiping idols. God knew Israel’s desire for a king of ability, though they were not concerned to have a man of integrity who would put the Lord first in his thoughts, such as David was. Therefore God gave Israel the kind of king they wanted, and they inaugurated Jereboam king over all Israel (v.20). Just as Israel had to learn by experience the folly of wanting a king such as Saul (1Sa 8:11-20), so in having a king such as Jereboam they would learn by sad experience that they ought to trust the Lord rather than demand their own rights.

Rehoboam, in returning to Jerusalem, thought he could force Israel into submission, and gathered 180,000 chosen warriors with the object of attacking Israel (v.21). But the Lord directly intervened by sending the prophet Shemaiah to forbid Rehoboam to carry out this attack, telling him and the people of Judah and Benjamin not to go to fight their brethren, “For,” God said, “This things is from Me” (vs.22-24). It was mercy on God’s part to send this message, for otherwise there might have been a terrible slaughter with no problem resolved at all. Later than this Amaziah, a king of Judah, launched a battle against Joash king of Israel, but was badly defeated (2Ki 14:8-12). At least Rehoboam had sense enough to listen to Shemaiah and to obey the Word of the Lord (v.24).

JEREBOAM’S IDOLATRY

(vs.25-33)

Jereboam had accepted the message of Ahijah the prophet that Jereboam would be ruler over ten tribes, but he ignored God’s message at the same time that if Jereboam would obey the commandments of the Lord then his kingdom would be established (ch.11:38). Solomon had disobeyed, which is the reason that Jereboam was given the ten tribes.

However, Jereboam was apprehensive that, if the Israelites went to Jerusalem (God’s center) to offer sacrifices, they might be inclined to return and accept the rule of Rehoboam. Because Jereboam had no real faith in the living God, he decided with the advice of his officers, to follow the dictates of human expediency, not only to establish one center for Israel’s worship, but two, and both of these in opposition to God’s one center. To accomplish this plan, he had two golden calves made, one set in Bethel (in the south of the land) and the other in Dan (in the north). Was he ignorant of God’s judgment against Israel for making a golden calf when Moses was receiving the law in Mount Sinai? (Exo 32:19-20; Exo 32:35). But no voice was evidently raised to warn Jereboam of the evil of his action or the danger of its consequences.

He did not tell the people that these calves were simply to remind them of God, as is usually claimed by image makers, but flatly declared, “Here are your gods, 0 Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt” (v.18). Any image made to represent God in any way will soon take the place of God in people’s minds.

Thus Jereboam forsook the worship of the true God of Israel. As many religious leaders do today, he led the people to worship idols, apparently assuming that as long as one is religious he is worshiping God, though in a little different way than do others. Jereboam also made shrines in high places and made priests of any of the people he wanted, ignoring God’s order of the priesthood only of the sons of Aaron (v.31).

It seems he was determined to make Israel totally separate from Judah in every way, so that he ordained a feast on the 15th day of the 8th month (v.32), a day he had devised in his own heart (v.33), ordering sacrifices to be made to the golden calves, employing the priests Jereboam had ordained for the high places. This was brazenly insulting to God, but in Christendom today similar idolatry is adopted as being quite acceptable.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

A. The First Period of Antagonism 12:1-16:28

After the division of the kingdom, their respective kings were hostile to one another for 57 years.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The division of the kingdom 12:1-24

This section of text contains the account of the split of the United Kingdom into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Rehoboam’s dilemma 12:1-5

It is not clear why the northern tribes had invited Rehoboam to the northern town of Shechem. They may have done so for a coronation over Israel separate from his coronation over Judah. [Note: Jacob Myers, II Chronicles, p. 65; Bright, p. 210.] On the other hand, the northern tribes may have invited him to go there for his coronation over the entire nation. Jerusalem was the natural coronation site. Perhaps Rehoboam chose to hold the ceremony at Shechem to accommodate, and perhaps placate, the northern tribes. In any case, Shechem was an understandable site because of its historical significance and earlier covenant renewal ceremonies (cf. Gen 12:6-7; Gen 33:18-20; Joshua 8; Joshua 24).

The heavy yoke Solomon had imposed on the Israelites consisted of taxation, forced labor, and other burdens. If Solomon had exempted Judah from these, [Note: See my note on 4:7-19.] the spokesmen were probably speaking for the northern tribes rather than for all the Israelites and were demanding similar favors. [Note: Moshe Weinfeld, "The Counsel of the ’Elders’ to Rehoboam and Its Implications," MAARAV 3:1 (January 1982):27-53.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

A NEW REIGN

1Ki 12:1-5

“A foolish son is the calamity of his father.”

– Pro 19:13.

“He left behind him Roboam, even the foolishness of the people, and one that had no understanding.”

– Sir 47:23.

REHOBOAM, who was Solomons only son, succeeded in Jerusalem without opposition, B.C. 937. But the northern tribes were in no mood to regard as final the prerogative acceptance of the son of Solomon by the rival tribe of Judah. David had won them by his vivid personality; Solomon had dazzled them by his royal magnificence. It did not follow that they were blindly to accept a king who emerged for the first time from the shadow of the harem, and was the son of an Ammonitess, who worshipped Chemosh. Instead of going to Rehoboam at Jerusalem as the tribes had gone to David at Hebron, they summoned an assembly at their ancient city of Shechem, on the site of the modern Nablus, between Mount Ebal and Gerizim. In this fortress-sanctuary they determined, as “men of Israel,” to bring their grievances under the notice of the new sovereign before they formally ratified his succession. According to one view they summoned Jeroboam, who had already returned to Zeredah, to be their spokesman. When the assembly met they told the king that they would accept him if he would lighten their grievous service which his father had put upon them. Rehoboam, taken by surprise, said that they should receive his answer in “three days.” In the interval he consulted the aged counselors of his father. Their answer was astute in its insight into human nature. It resembled the “long promises, short performance” which Guido da Montefeltro recommended to Pope Boniface VIII in the case of the town-of Penestrino. They well understood the maxim of “omnia serviliter pro imperio,” which has paved the way to power of many a usurper front Otho to Bolingbroke. “Give the people a civil answer,” they said; “tell them that you are their servant. Content with this they will be scattered to their homes, and you will bind them to your yoke forever.” In an answer so deceptive, but so immoral, the corrupting influence of the Solomonian autocracy is as conspicuous as in that of the malapert youths who make their appeal to the kings conceit.

“Who knoweth whether his son will be a wise man or a fool?” asks Solomon in the Book of Proverbs. Apparently he had done little or nothing to save his only son from being the latter. Despots in polygamous households, whether in Palestine or Zululand, live in perpetual dread of their own sons, and generally keep them in absolute subordination. If Rehoboam had received the least political training, or had been possessed of the smallest common sense, he would have been able to read the signs of the times sufficiently well to know that everything might be lost by blustering arrogance, and everything gained by temporizing plausibility. Had Rehoboam been a man like David, or even like Saul in his better day, he might have grappled to himself the affections of his people as with hooks of steel by seizing the opportunity of abating their burdens, and offering them a sincere assurance that he would study their peace and welfare above all. Had he been a man of ordinary intelligence, he would have seen that the present was not the moment to exacerbate a discontent which was already dangerous. But the worldly-wise counsel of the elders of Solomon was utterly distasteful to a man who, after long insignificance, had just begun to feel the vertigo of autocracy. His sense of his right was strong in exact proportion to his own worthlessness. He turned to the young men who had grown up with him, and who stood before him-the jeunesse doree of a luxurious and hypocritical epoch, the aristocratic idlers in whom the insolent self-indulgence of an enervated society had expelled the old spirit of simple faithfulness. Their answer was the sort of answer which Buckingham and Sedley might have suggested to Charles II in face of the demands of the Puritans; and it was founded on notions of inherent prerogative, and “the right Divine of kings to govern wrong,” such as the Bishops might have instilled into James I at the Hampton Court Conference, or Archbishop Laud into Charles I in the days of “Thorough.”

“Threaten this insolent canaille,” they said, “with your royal severity. Tell them that you do not intend to give up your sacred right to enforced labor, such as your brother of Egypt has always enjoyed. Tell them that your little finger shall be thicker than your fathers loins, and that instead of his whips you will chastise them with leaded thongs. That is the way to show yourself every inch a king.”

The insensate advice of these youths proved itself attractive to the empty and infatuated prince. He accepted it in the dementation which is a presage of ruin; for, as the pious historian says, “the cause was from the Lord.”

The announcement of this incredibly foolish reply woke in the men of Israel an answering shout of rebellion. In the rhythmic war-cry of Sheba, the son of Bichri, which had become proverbial, {2Sa 20:1} they cried:-

“What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse, To your tents, O Israel: Now see to thine own house, David!”

Unable to appease the wild tumult, Rehoboam again showed his want of sense by sending an officer to the people whose position and personality were most sure to be offensive to them. He sent “Adoram, who was over the tribute”-the man who stood, before the Ephraimites especially, as the representative of everything in monarchical government which was to them most entirely odious. Josephus says that he hoped to mollify the indignant people. But it was too late. They stoned the aged Al-ham-Mas with stones that he died; and when the foolish king witnessed or heard of the fate of a man who had grown grey as the chief agent of depotism he felt that it was high time to look after his own safety. Apparently be had come with no other escort than that of the men of Judah who formed a part of the national militia. Of Cherethites, Pelethites, and Gittites we hear no more. The princeling of a despoiled and humiliated kingdom was perhaps in no condition to provide the pay of these foreign mercenaries. The king found that the name of David was no longer potent, and that royalty had lost its awful glamour. He made an effort to reach his chariot, and, barely succeeding, fled with headlong speed to Jerusalem. From that day forever the unity of Israel was broken, and “the twelve tribes” became a name for two mutually antagonistic powers. The men of Israel at once chose Jeroboam for their king, and an event was accomplished which had its effect on the history of all succeeding times. The only Israelites over whom the House of David continued to rule were those who, like the shattered remnant of Simeon, dwelt in the cities of Judah. {1Ki 12:17}

Thus Davids grandson found that his kingdom over a people had shrunk to the headship of a tribe, with a sort of nominal suzerainty over Edom and part of Philistia. He was reduced to the comparative insignificance of Davids own position during the first seven years, when he was only king in Hebron. This disruption was the beginning of endless material disasters to both kingdoms; but it was the necessary condition of high spiritual blessings for “it was of the Lord.”

Politically it is easy to see that one cause of the revolt lay in the too great rapidity in which kings, who, as it was assumed, were to be elective, or at least to depend on the willing obedience of the people, had transformed themselves into hereditary despots. Judah might still accept the sway of a king of her own tribe; but the powerful and jealous Ephraimites, at the head of the Northern Confederation, refused to regard themselves as the destined footstool for a single family. As in the case of Saul and of David, they determined once more to accept no king who did not owe his sovereignty to their own free choice.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary