A	>>	B	>>	C	>>	D	>>	E
F	>>	G	>>	H	>>	I	>>	J
K	>>	L	>>	M	>>	N	>>	O
P	>>	R	>>		S	>>		T
U	>>		V			>>		W

Nathaniel Hawthorne - "The Old Manse (From Mosses From An Old Manse)"

Robert Bloomfield - "The Banks of Wye"

Logan Marshall - "A History of The Nations and Empires Involved and a Study"

Anthony Trollope - "George Walker At Suez"

Expositions of Holy Scripture

A >> Alexander Maclaren >> Expositions of Holy Scripture




Note that the prophecy is in three parts. First, verses 31-33 announce
the punishment, with the reservation of a dwindled dominion to the
Davidic house, for the sake of their great ancestor and of God's choice
of Jerusalem, and solemnly charge on the people the idolatry which the
king had introduced. The second part (verses 34-36) postpones the
execution of the sentence till after Solomon's death, and assigns the
same two reasons for this further forbearance. The third part (verses
37-39) promises Jeroboam the kingdom, and lays down the conditions on
which the favours promised to David and his house may be his. The whole
closes with the assurance that the affliction of the seed of David is
not to be for ever.

The punishment was heavy; for the disruption of the kingdom meant the
wreck of all the prosperity of Solomon's earlier days, the hopeless
weakness of the divided tribes as against the formidable powers that
pressed in on them from north and south, frequent intestine wars,
bitter hatred instead of amity. Yet there was another side to it; for
the very failure of the human kings made the Messianic hope the more
bright, like a light glowing in the deepening darkness, and tumult and
oppression might teach those whom prosperity and peace had only
corrupted. The great lesson for us is the ruin which follows on
departure from God. We do not see national sins followed with equal
plainness or swiftness by national judgments; but the history of Israel
is meant to show on a large scale what is always true, in the long run,
both for nations and for individuals, that 'it is an evil thing and a
bitter' to depart from the living God.

Mark, too, that the judgment is wrought out by perfectly natural
causes. The separation follows old lines of cleavage. The strength of
David's kingdom lay in the south; and Ephraim was too powerful a tribe
and too proud of its ancient glories, to acquiesce cheerfully in the
pre-eminence of Judah. The oppression of forced labour and heavy
taxation was put forward as the reason for the revolt, and, no doubt,
was the reason for the readiness with which the ten tribes rallied to
Jeroboam's flag. There are two ways of writing history. You can either
leave God out, or trace all to Him. The former way calls itself
'scientific' and 'positive.' The latter is the Bible way. Perhaps, if
modern history were written on the same principles as the Books of
Kings, the divine hand would be as plainly visible,--only it requires
an inspired historian to do it. The way of bringing about the judgment
for departing from God has changed, but the judgment remains the same
to-day as when Ahijah rent his garment.

Between verses 39 and 40 we must suppose an attempt at armed rebellion
by Jeroboam. That is implied by the expression that he 'lifted his hand
against the king' (verses 26, 27). That attempt must have been put down
by Solomon. And that it should have been made shows how little Jeroboam
was influenced by religious motives. The prophet's words had set him
all afire with ambitious hopes, and he paid no heed to the distinct
assurance that Solomon was to be 'prince all the days of his life.' He
stretched out a rash, self-willed hand to snatch the promised crown,
and broke God's commandment even while he pretended to be keeping it.
How different David's conduct in like circumstances! He took no steps
to bring about the fulfilment of Samuel's promise at his anointing, but
patiently waited for God to do as He had said, in His own time, and
meantime continued his lowly work. God's time is the best time; and he
who greedily grasps at a premature fulfilment of promised good will
have to pay for it by defeat and exile from the modest good that he
had.

Jeroboam's flight to Egypt brings that ill-omened name on the page for
the first time since the Exodus. It has given occasion to an
extraordinary addition to the Septuagint, professing to tell his
adventures there,--how he was high in Shishak's favour, and married a
princess. That is apparently pure legend; but his residence there was
important, as the beginning of Egypt's interference in Israel's
affairs. It is an old trick of aggressive nations to side with a
pretender to the throne of a country which they covet, and benevolently
to strengthen him that he may weaken it. No doubt it was as Jeroboam's
ally that Shishak invaded Judah in the fifth year of Rehoboam, and
plundered the Temple and the palace. It was a bad beginning for a king
of Israel to be a pensioner of Egypt.

The narrative closes with the sad, reticent formula which ends each
reign, and in Solomon's case hides so much that is tragic and dark.
This was all that could be said about the end of a career that had
begun so nobly. If more had been said, the record would have been
sadder; and so the pitying narrative casts the veil of the stereotyped
summary over the miserable story. There are many instances in history
of lives of genius and enthusiasm, of high promise and partial
accomplishment, marred and flung away, but none which present the great
tragedy of wasted gifts, and blossoms never fruited, in a sharper, more
striking form than the life of the wise king of Israel, who 'in his
latter days' was 'a fool.' The goodliest vessel may be shipwrecked in
sight of port. Solomon was not an old man, as we count age, when he
died; for he reigned forty years, and was somewhere about twenty when
he became king. But it was 'when he was old' that he fell, and that
through passion which should have been well under control long before.
The sun went down in a thick bank of clouds, which rose from undrained
marshes in his soul, and stretched high up in the western horizon. His
career, in its glory and its shame, preaches the great lesson which the
Book of Ecclesiastes puts into his mouth as 'the conclusion of the
whole matter': 'Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the
whole duty of man.'




HOW TO SPLIT A KINGDOM

And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to
make him king. 2. 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); 3. That they sent and
called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and
spake unto Rehoboam, saying, 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. 6. And he
said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And
the people departed. 6. 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? 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. 8. 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: 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? 10. 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 father's loins. 11. 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. 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. 13. And
the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel
that they gave him; 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. 15. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the
people; for the cause was from the Lord, that He might perform His
saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the
son of Nebat. 16. 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. 17. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in
the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them.'--1 KINGS xii. 1-17.



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 (verse 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 (1 Kings xi. 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 (1 Kings ix. 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 I Kings xiv. 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 verse
9 and in the young advisers' answer in verse 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.




POLITICAL RELIGION

'Then Jeroboam built Shechera in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and
went out from thence, and built Penuel. 26. And Jeroboam said in his
heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: 27. 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. 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. 29. And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put
he in Dan. 30. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to
worship before the one, even unto Dan. 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. 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; 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. 33. 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;
and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon
the altar, and burnt incense.--1 KINGS xii. 25-33


The details of this section need no long elucidation; for the one fact
which it records, namely, the establishment of the calf worship in
Israel, is the main point to consider. As for details, we need touch
them lightly. The 'building' of Shechem and Penuel is probably to be
understood as 'fortifying'; for, in regard to the former town, we know
from the preceding section that it _was_ a town before the
disruption, and the same is probably true of the latter. Two
fortresses, one in the heart of his kingdom, one on the eastern border,
where attack might be expected, were Jeroboam's first care.

In estimating his conduct, the fact must be remembered that Ahijah had
promised him God's protection and the establishment of his kingdom in
his family, on the sole condition of obedience. If he had believed the
prophet, something else than building strongholds would have been his
prime aim. But he evidently thought that promises were all very well,
but thick walls were better. The two things recorded of him are quite
of a piece; and the writer seems, by putting them thus side by side, to
wish us to note their identity of motive and similarity in character.

The establishment of the calf worship was entirely due, according to
this historian, to dread that religious unity would heal the schism of
political duality, and that Jeroboam's kingdom and life would be
sacrificed to the magnetism which would draw the revolted northern
tribes back to render allegiance, where they went up to worship. The
calculation was reasonable: but why, in estimating chances, did
Jeroboam leave out God's promise? That should have kept him at ease.
The calves and the castles were signs of fear and of slight regard to
the prophet's word. No doubt, when it suited him, he could vindicate
rebellion on the plea of obeying God. The plea would have sounded more
genuine if he had shown that he trusted God.

The calves were probably suggested by his Egyptian experiences, where
he had seen sacred bulls worshipped living, and mummied dead. But the
remembrance of Aaron and the golden calf was evidently present to him,
as the almost verbal quotation of Aaron's words shows. If so, the whole
transaction is still more accentuated as a revolt against the ritual of
the central sanctuary. 'The much-calumniated Aaron is our example. He
was mastered by his brother, but he was right, and we go back to the
old original worship of our fathers.'

Jeroboam was among the first to employ the expedient, so often resorted
to since, of white-washing old-world criminals, in order to provide an
ancestry for modern heresies. The calves seem to have been doubled
simply as a matter of convenience. When once the principle of saving
trouble comes in, in religion, it generally plays a great part. If it
were too much to go to Jerusalem, it would soon be too much to go to
Bethel, and so Dan must be provided for the north. The calves were
symbols of Jehovah, not of other gods, as must be carefully noted. The
making of them implied all that followed; for a god must have shrine
and priesthood and sacrifice and festivals. The Levites refusing to
serve, and probably losing their inheritance, fled to Judah, and a new
priesthood was made 'from among all the people' (Rev. Ver.), The Feast
of Tabernacles was retained but its date shifted forward a month,
perhaps because the harvest, which it closed, was later in the north,
but evidently with the design of, as it were, underscoring the
religious separation.

The latter part of this passage should perhaps be attached more closely
to the next chapter, and understood as describing the one instance of
Jeroboam's sacrificing which was so grimly interrupted by the
denunciation by the anonymous prophet from Judah. Such are the outlines
of the facts. What are the lessons taught by them?

I. There is that one already mentioned,--the folly and sin of seeking
to help God to fulfil His promises by our poor efforts at making their
fulfilment sure to sense. No doubt many of His promises are contingent
on our activity in material things; and no man has a right to expect
that' his bread shall be given him,' for instance, unless he
contributes the 'sweat of his brow' towards it. But Jeroboam had had
the conditions of safety and stability clearly laid down. They were,
obedience after the pattern of David (1 Kings xi. 38). So there was no
need for building Shechem and Penuel, nor for casting calves and
serving them. The heavens will stand without our rearing brickwork
pillars to hold them up. But it takes much faith to trust God's bare
word, and we are all apt to feel safer if we have something for sense
to grasp. On the open plain, God guards those who trust Him more
securely than if they lay in cities 'fenced up to heaven. 'Jerusalem
shall be inhabited as towns without walls. ... For I, saith the Lord,
will be unto her a wall of fire round about.'

Author of ‘Conversations With God’ Admits Essay Wasn’t His
A personal Christmas tale posted online by the author Neale Donald Walsch turns out to belong to someone else — the writer Candy Chand, who first published it 10 years ago.

Books of The Times: When Labels Fought the Digital, and the Digital Won
Steve Knopper’s stark accounting of the mistakes major record labels have made in the digital era suggests they are largely responsible for their own demise.

Arts, Briefly: Winfrey Web Site Notes Fabricated Memoir
Oprah.com, the Web site of “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” has posted a disclaimer acknowledging that Herman Rosenblat admitted he had invented portions of his Holocaust memoir.