When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king, saying, “What portion have we in David? We don’t have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David.” So Israel departed to their tents.
But as for the children of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the men subject to forced labor; and all Israel stoned him to death with stones. King Rehoboam hurried to get himself up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against David’s house to this day. When all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the congregation, and made him king over all Israel. There was no one who followed David’s house, except for the tribe of Judah only. When Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and eighty thousand chosen men, who were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19, 21 Though their cause were good, yet it is most…
Though their cause were good, yet it is most hard for the people to bridle their affections, as these vile words declare.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv16–21 1Ki 12:16 So when all Israel saw that the…
1Ki 12:16 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.
Ver. 16. The people answered the king, saying] Here that proverb is exemplified, "Grievous words stir up wrath." {Pro 15:1} Rehoboam found also that strife is far easier stirred than stinted: and that the people is a most dangerous and heady water when once it is out.
Read full note →
What portion have we in David?] So soon are all his good turns done for them, and their fathers afore them, forgotten. Perraro grati reperiuntur. This absurd language they had learned of Saul the castaway and Sheba the traitor.
To your tents, O Israel.] Away to your own homes and houses: for why should we enslave ourselves to such a tyrant?
Now see to thine own house, David.] See to thine own affairs, and we will see to ours: and provide us of a king that will better deport himself toward us than this fatuellus.
So Israel departed unto their tents.] To Ohalehem and to Elohehem, their tents and their gods, resolving never to subject themselves to Rehoboam, or any of his posterity. {a}
{a} Broughton on Daniel.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv16–21 What portion have we in David, i.e. in David’s…
What portion have we in David, i.e. in David’s family and son? we can expect no benefit or relief from him, and therefore we renounce all commerce with him, and subjection to him. See 2Sa 20:1. They named David rather than Rehoboam, to signify, that they did renounce, not Rehoboam only, but all David’s family.
The son of Jesse; so they call David in contempt: q. d. Rehoboam hath no reason to carry himself with such pride and contempt toward his people, for if we trace his original, it was as mean and obscure as many of ours. And since he abuseth his power, let us reduce him to his former obscurity.
Read full note →
To your tents, O Israel, i.e. let us all forsake him, and go to our own homes. there to consider, and then to meet and conclude how to provide otherwise for ourselves. Now see to thine own use, David, i.e. govern thy own family; for thou shalt no longer rule over us. Thus they brake out into actual rebellion against him, whom God had made their lawful sovereign; wherein, though they fulfilled God’s counsel, yet they violated his authority and command. And they do again make an opprobrious mention of David, whom they should not have named without honour.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v16 We have here the rending of the kingdom of…
We have here the rending of the kingdom of the ten tribes from the house of David, to effect which,
I. The people were hold and resolute in their revolt. They highly resented the provocation that Rehoboam had given them, were incensed at his menaces, concluded that that government would in the progress of it be intolerably grievous which in the beginning of it was so very haughty, and therefore immediately came to this resolve, one and all: What portion have we in David? Kg1 12:16. They speak here very unbecomingly of David, that great benefactor of their nation, calling him the son of Jesse, no greater a man than his neighbours. How soon are good men, and their good services to the public, forgotten! The rashness of their resolution was also much to be blamed. In time, and with prudent management, they might have settled the original contract with Rehoboam to mutual satisfaction. Had they enquired who gave Rehoboam this advice, and taken a course to remove those evil counsellors from about him, the rupture might have been prevented: otherwise their jealousy for their liberty and property well became that free people. Israel is not a servant, is not a homeborn slave; why should he be spoiled? Jer 2:14. They are willing to be ruled, but not to be ridden. Protection draws allegiance, but destruction cannot. No marvel that Israel falls away from the house of David (Kg1 12:19) if the house of David fall away from the great ends of their advancement, which was to be ministers of God to them for good. But thus to rebel against the seed of David, whom God had advanced to the kingdom (entailing it on his seed), and to set up another king in opposition to that family, was a great sin; see Ch2 13:5-8. To this God refers, Hos 8:4. They have set up kings, but not by me. And it is here mentioned to the praise of the tribe of Judah that they followed the house of David (Kg1 12:17, Kg1 12:20), and, for aught that appears, they found Rehoboam better than his word, nor did he rule with the rigour which at first he threatened.
Read full note →
II. Rehoboam was imprudent in the further management of this affair, and more and more infatuated. Having foolishly thrown himself into a quick-sand, he sunk the further in with plunging to get out. 1. He was very unadvised in sending Adoram, who was over the tribute, to treat with them, Kg1 12:18. The tribute was the thing, and, for the sake of that, Adoram was the person, they most complained of. The very sight of him, whose name was odious among them, exasperated them, and made them outrageous. He was one to whom they could not so much as give a patient hearing, but stoned him to death in a popular tumult. Rehoboam was now as unhappy in the choice of his ambassador as before of his counsellors. 2. Some think he was also unadvised in quitting his ground, and making so much haste to Jerusalem, for thereby he deserted his friends and gave advantage to his enemies, who had gone to their tents indeed (Kg1 12:16) in disgust, but did not offer to make Jeroboam king till Rehoboam had gone, Kg1 12:20. See how soon this foolish prince went from one extreme to the other. He hectored and talked big when he thought all was his own, but sneaked and looked very mean when he saw himself in danger. It is common for those that are most haughty in their prosperity to be most abject in adversity.
III. God forbade his attempt to recover by the sword what he had lost. What was done was of God, who would not suffer that it should be undone again (as it would be if Rehoboam got the better and reduced the ten tribes), nor that more should be done to the prejudice of the house of David, as would be if Jeroboam got the better and conquered the two tribes. The thing must rest as it is, and therefore God forbids the battle. 1. It was brave in Rehoboam to design the reducing of the revolters by force. His courage came to him when he had come to Jerusalem, Kg1 12:21. There he thought himself among his firm friends, who generously adhered to him and appeared for him. Judah and Benjamin (who feared the Lord and the king, and meddled not with those that were given to change) presently raised an army of 180,000 men, for the recovery of their king's right to the ten tribes, and were resolved to stand by him (as we say) with their lives and fortunes, having either not such cause, or rather not such a disposition, to complain, as the rest had. 2. It as more brave in Rehoboam to desist when God, by a prophet, ordered him to lay down his arms. He would not lose a kingdom tamely, for then he would have been unworthy the title of a prince; and yet he would not contend for it in opposition to God, for then he would have been unworthy the title of an Israelite. To proceed in this war would be not only to fight against their brethren (Kg1 12:24), whom they ought to love, but to fight against their God, to whom they ought to submit: This thing is from me. These two considerations should reconcile us to our losses and troubles, that God is the author of them and our brethren are the instruments of them; let us not therefore meditate revenge. Rehoboam and his people hearkened to the word of the Lord, disbanded the army, and acquiesced. Though, in human probability, they had a fair prospect of success (for their army was numerous and resolute, Jeroboam's party weak and unsettled), though it would turn to their reproach among their neighbours to lose so much of their strength and never have one push for it, to make a flourish and do nothing, yet, (1.) They regarded the command of God though sent by a poor prophet. When we know God's mind we must submit to it, how much soever it crosses our own mind. (2.) They consulted their own interest, concluding that though they had all the advantages, even that of right, on their side, yet they could not prosper if they fought in disobedience to God; and it was better to sit still than to rise up and fall. In the next reign God allowed them to fight, and gave them victory (2 Chr. 13), but not now.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv16–21 But as for the children of Israel which dwelt…
But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah,.... Either such Israelites of the ten tribes that had before dwelt, or now upon this removed, for the sake of worship, to dwell in the tribe of Judah; or else that part of Israel, the tribe of Judah, which dwelt in the cities belonging to it:
Rehoboam reigned over them; they owned him to be their king, and submitted to his government.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv16–20 In David - In David's family and son; we…
In David - In David's family and son; we can expect no benefit or relief from him, and therefore we renounce all commerce with him, and subjection to him. They named David, rather than Rehoboam; to signify, that they renounced not Rehoboam only, but all David's family. Son of Jesse - So they call David in contempt; as if they had said, Rehoboam hath no reason to carry himself with such pride and contempt toward his people; for if we trace his original, it was as mean and obscure as any of ours. To your tents - Let us forsake him, and go to our own homes, there to consider, how to provide for ourselves.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 20 Verse 16. So Israel departed unto their tents] That…
Verse 16. So Israel departed unto their tents] That is, the ten tribes withdrew their allegiance from Rehoboam; only Judah and Benjamin, frequently reckoned one tribe, remaining with him.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19, 20 1Ki 12:16. So when all Israel saw that the…
1Ki 12:16. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, &c. — Here we see the divine threatening to Solomon by Ahijah beginning to take effect, and the important event of rending the kingdom of the ten tribes from the house of David, foretold by that prophet, on the point of being fulfilled. The people show themselves bold and resolute in the cause they had undertaken, and highly resent the provocation which Rehoboam had given them, concluding that a government, which in the beginning was so haughty, would be intolerably grievous in the progress of it. What portion have we in David? — In David’s family and son; we can expect no benefit or relief from him, and therefore we renounce all commerce with him, and subjection to him. They named David rather than Rehoboam, to signify that they renounced not Rehoboam only, but all David’s family. Son of Jesse — So they call David in contempt; as if they had said, Rehoboam hath no reason to carry himself with such pride and contempt toward his people; for if we trace his original, it was as mean and obscure as ours. To your tents, O Israel — Let us forsake him and go to our own homes, there to consider how to provide for ourselves. Now see to thine own house, David — Look to thine own affairs, and content thyself with reigning over the house of Judah; for thou shalt no longer rule over us. Thus they break out into actual and open rebellion against the family of David, to which they were under the greatest obligations: for surely no nation ever owed more to a prince, than the Israelites did to him. But how soon were all his benefits forgotten by this ungrateful people! ungrateful, not only to God, but to their best temporal benefactors. It is true their jealousy for their liberty and property well became them as a free people; but the rashness of their resolution is much to be blamed: for, in time, and by prudent management, they might have settled matters with Rehoboam to mutual satisfaction. Had they inquired who gave him this advice, and taken a course to remove those evil counsellors from about him, the rupture might have been prevented. It is no marvel, however, that Israel fell away from the house of David, when the house of David fell from God, and from the great ends of their advancement, which was, to be ministers of God to the people for good.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv16–21 See the marginal reference. The words breathe unmistakeably the…
See the marginal reference. The words breathe unmistakeably the spirit of tribal jealousy and dislike (1Ki 11:40 note).
Now see to thine own house, David - i. e., “Henceforth, house of David, look after thine own tribe, Judah, only.” It is not a threat of war, but a warning against interference.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv16, 17, 18, 20, 21 Look to. Chaldean, "rule over thy own tribe." They…
Look to. Chaldean, "rule over thy own tribe." They imitate those who give a bill of divorce. (Calmet) --- Herein they were not excusable, no more than those who persecuted God’s people, though he permitted their wickedness, to chastise the guilty. (Menochius) --- Seba had formerly withdrawn the people from David in the same manner, 2 Kings xx. 1. (Haydock) --- Abulensis thinks that as God had chosen Jeroboam, and his rival acted tryannically, the people did right. (Tirinus)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On v20 JEROBOAM MADE KING OVER THEM. (Kg1 12:20-33)
JEROBOAM MADE KING OVER THEM. (Kg1 12:20-33)
when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again--This verse closes the parenthetical narrative begun at Kg1 12:2, and Kg1 12:21-24 resume the history from Kg1 12:1. Rehoboam determined to assert his authority by leading a large force into the disaffected provinces. But the revolt of the ten tribes was completed when the prophet Shemaiah ordered, in the Lord's name, an abandonment of any hostile measures against the revolutionists. The army, overawed by the divine prohibition, dispersed, and the king was obliged to submit.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv16, 17, 18, 20, 21 16. What portion have we — The signal cry…
16. What portion have we — The signal cry of insurrection and revolt. Compare 2Sa_20:1.
Departed unto their tents — Went to their different homes, and proceeded to make arrangements for founding a kingdom separate from Judah.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv16–21 16–20. Revolt of the ten tribes (Cf. 2Ch_10:16-19)
16–20. Revolt of the ten tribes (Cf. 2Ch_10:16-19)
16. all Israel saw that the king hearkened not] Josephus says ‘they were struck by his words as by an iron rod and grieved as though the words of the king had been actually put into execution.’
Read full note →
What portion have we in David?] Very similar words were used (2Sa_20:1) by Sheba the Benjamite when he strove to rouse the people against David. The tribe of Judah was more closely connected with the house of Jesse, because his home was at Bethlehem.
To your tents, O Israel] i.e. Disperse to your homes, that you may take steps for protecting yourselves, and arranging for resistance to the threatened severity.
see to thine own house] As though the tribe to which he belonged was now all that would be left to him. The LXX. reads βόσκε τὸν οἷκόν σου, as though their text had been רעה =‘to feed’ and not as in the Massoretic text ראה=to see.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv16–20 (16) To your tents.—This war-cry was not new. It…
(16) To your tents.—This war-cry was not new. It had been heard once before, during the conflict between Judah and Israel after the rebellion of Absalom, when it was silenced instantly by the relentless promptitude of Joab (2Sa_20:1). Only the last ironical line is added, “See to thine own house, David” (which the LXX. explains as “Feed, as a shepherd, thine own house, David”). There is perhaps a sarcastic allusion to God’s promise to establish the house of David: “Be a king, but only in thine own house!”
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv16–21 So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened…
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." Bahr 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." lhaO which means primarily a "tent," has for its secondary meaning, "habitation," "home." This cry the Marseillaise of Israel probably had its origin at a time when the people dwelt in tents, viz., in the march through the desert. (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). ha; r; 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 ch. 8:66.
Vers. 16-20.
Read full note →
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 (ver. 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, Acts 7.
(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.
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 (the wars of the Roses, the civil war of the sixteenth century, the revolution of 1688, the French Revolution of the last century, etc.) 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. (Jud_1:8:1 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
2. of any section of the people must be a source of weakness, a sign of decadence.
3. 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 disaster in 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 (ver. 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v21 "For from Israel is even this; the workman made…
"JEROBOAM THE SON OF NEBAT, WHO MADE ISRAEL TO SIN"
1Ki_12:21-23.
Read full note →
"For from Israel is even this; the workman made it and it is no god: yea, the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces."
- Hos_8:6
THE condemnation of the first king of Israel sounds like a melancholy and menacing refrain through the whole history of the Northern Kingdom. Let us consider the extent and nature of his crime; for though the condemnation is most true if we judge merely by the issue of Jeroboams acts a mans guilt cannot always be measured by the immensity of its unforeseen consequences, nor can his actions and intentions be always fairly judged after the lapse of centuries. The moral judgments recorded in the Book of Kings concerning legal and ritual offences are measured by the standard of mens consciences nearly a century after Josiahs Reformation in B.C. 623, not by that which prevailed in B.C. 937, when Jeroboam came to the throne. It seems clear that, even in the opinion of his contemporaries, Jeroboam was unfaithful to the duties of the call which he had received from God; but it would be an error to suppose that his sin was, in itself, so heinous as those of which both Solomon and Rehoboam and other kings of Judah were guilty. "Calf-worship," as it was contemptuously called in later days, did not present itself as "calf-worship" to Jeroboam or his people. To them it was only the more definite adoration of Jehovah under the guise of the cherubic emblem which Solomon had himself enshrined in the Temple and Moses himself had sanctioned in the Tabernacle. There is not a word to show that they were cognizant of the book which had narrated the fierce reprobation by Moses of Aarons "golden calf" in the wilderness. Jeroboams chief sin was not that as a king he tolerated, or even set up, a sort of idolatry, but that he induced the whole body of his subjects to share in his evil innovations.
The charge brought against him was threefold. First, he set up the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. Secondly, he "made priests from among all the people, which were not of the sons of Levi." Thirdly, he established his "harvest feast" not on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, which was the Feast of Tabernacles, but on the fifteenth day of the eighth month. In estimating these sins let us endeavor-for it is a sacred duty-to be just.
1. We read in the Authorized Version that "he made priests of the lowest of the people," and this tends to increase the prejudice against him. But to have done this willfully would have been entirely against his own interests. The more honorable his priests were, the more was his new worship likely to succeed. The Hebrew only says that "he made priests of all classes of the people," or, as the Revised Version renders it, "from among all the people." No doubt this would appear to have been a heinous innovation, judged from the practice of later ages; it is not clear that it was equally so in the days of Jeroboam. If David, unrebuked, made his sons priests; if Ira the Ithrite was a priest; if Solomon, by his own fiat, altered the succession of the priesthood; if Solomon (no less than Jeroboam) arrogated to himself priestly functions on public occasions, the opinion as to priestly rights may not have existed in the days of Jeroboam, or may only have existed in an infinitely weaker form than in the days of the post-exilic chronicler. An incidental notice in another book shows us that in Dan, at any rate, he did not disturb the Levitic ministry. There the descendants of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the grandson of Moses, continued their priestly functions from the day when that unworthy descendant of the mighty lawgiver was seduced to conduct a grossly irregular cult for a few shillings a year, down to the day when the golden calf at Dan was carried away by Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria. If the Levites preferred to abide by the ministrations of Jerusalem, and migrated in large numbers to the south, Jeroboam may have held that necessity compelled him to appoint priests who were not of the House of Levi. Neither for this, nor for his new feast of Tabernacles, nor for the calf-worship, were the kings of Israel condemned (so far as is recorded) even by such mighty prophets as Elijah and Elisha.
In choosing Dan and Bethel as the seats for his new altars, the king was not actuated by purely arbitrary considerations. They were ancient and venerated shrines of pilgrimage and worship {Jdg_18:30; Jdg_20:18; Jdg_20:26 1Sa_10:3} He did not create any sacredness which was not already attached to them in the popular imagination. In point of fact he would have served the ends of a worldly policy much better if he had chosen Shechem; for Dan and Bethel were the two farthest parts of his kingdom. Dan was in constant danger from the Syrians, and Bethel, which is only twelve miles from Jerusalem, more than once fell into the hands of the kings of Judah, though they neither retained possession of it, nor disturbed the shrines, nor threw down the "calf" of the new worship. Jeroboam could not have created the "calf-worship" if he had not found everything prepared for its acceptance. Dan had been, since the earliest days, the seat of a chapelry and ephod served by the lineal descendants of Moses in unbroken succession; Bethel was associated with some of the nations holiest memories since the days of their forefather Israel.
2. Again, if in Jeroboams day the Priestly Code was in existence, he was clearly guilty of unjustifiable willfulness in altering the time for observing the Feast of Tabernacles from the seventh to the eighth month. But if there be little or no contemporary trace of any observation of the Feast of Tabernacles-if, as Nehemiah tells us, it had not once been properly observed from the days of Joshua to his own, or if Jeroboam was unaware of any sacred legislation on the subject-the writers of the tenth century may have judged too severely the fixing of a date for the Feast of Ingathering, which may have seemed more suitable to the conditions of the northern and western tribes. For in parts of that region the harvest ripens a month earlier than in Judah, and the festival was meant to be kept at the season of harvest.
3. These, however, were but incidental and subordinate matters compared with the setting up of the golden calves.
Jeroboam felt that if his people flocked to do sacrifice at the new and gorgeous Temple in Jerusalem they would return to their old monarchy and put him to death. He wished to avoid the fate of Ishbosheth {2Sa_4:7} He believed that he should be doing both a popular and a politic act if he saved them from the burden of this long journey and again decentralized the cult which Solomon had so recently centralized. He determined, therefore, to furnish the Ten Tribes with high places, and temples of high places, and objects of worship which might rival the golden cherubim of Zion, and be honored with festal music and royal pomp.
He never dreamed either of apostatizing from Jehovah, or of establishing the worship of idols. He broke the Second Commandment under pretence of helping the people to keep the first. The images which he set up were not meant to be substitutes for the one God, the God of their fathers, the God who had brought them from the land of Egypt; they were regarded as figures of Jehovah under the well understood and universally adopted emblem of a young bull, the symbol of fertility and strength. Some have fancied that he was influenced by his Egyptian reminiscences, and perhaps by Ano, his traditional Egyptian bride. This is an obvious error. In Egypt living bulls were worshipped under the names of Apis and Mnevis, not idol-figures. Egyptian gods would have been strange reminders of Him who delivered His people from Egyptian tyranny. It would have been insensate, by quoting the very words of Aaron, to recall to the minds of the people the disasters which had followed the worship of the golden calf in the wilderness. Beyond all question, Jeroboam neither did nor would have dreamed of bidding his whole people to abandon their faith and worship Egyptian idols, which never found any favor among the Israelites. He only encouraged, them to worship Jehovah under the form of the cherubim. Whatever may have been the aspect of the cherubim in the Oracle of the Temple, cherubic emblems appeared profusely amid its ornamentation, and the most conspicuous object in its courts was the molten sea, supported on the backs of twelve bulls. It is true that later prophets and poets, like Hosea and the Psalmist, spoke in scorn of his images as mere "calves," and spoke of him as likening his Maker to "an ox that eateth hay." They even came in due time to regard them as figures of Baal and Astarte, but this view is falsified by the entire annals of the Northern Kingdom from its commencement to its close. Jeroboam was, and always regarded himself as, a worshipper of Jehovah. He named his son and destined successor Abijah ("Jehovah is my Father"). Rehoboam himself was a far worse offender than he was, so far as the sanction of idolatry was concerned.
And yet he sinned, and yet he made Israel to sin. It is true that he did not sin against the full extent of the light and knowledge vouchsafed to men in later days. The sift of which he was guilty was the sin of worldly policy. With professions of religion on his lips he pandered to the rude and sensuous instinct which makes materialism in worship so much more attractive to all weak minds than spirituality. Proclaiming as his motive the rights of the people, he accelerated their religious degeneracy. "The means to strengthen or ruin the civil power," says Lowth, "is either to establish or destroy the right worship of God. The way to destroy religion is to embrace the dispenser of it. This is to give the royal stamp to a piece of lead." If we may trust to Jewish tradition, there were some families in Israel who, though they clung to their old homes, and would not migrate to the south, yet refused to worship what is, not quite justly, called "the heifer Baal." The legendary Tobit (1. 4-7) boasts that "when all the tribes of Naphthali fell from the house of Jerusalem and sacrificed to the heifer Baal I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts," and, in general, observed the provisions of the Levitic law.
There seems to have been but little religion in Jeroboams temperament. In every other great national gathering at Shechem and other sacred places we read of religious rites. {1Sa_10:19; 2Sa_5:1-3; 1Ki_8:1-5} No mention is made of them, no allusion occurs respecting them, in the assembly to which Jeroboam owed his throne. He might at least have consulted Abijah, who had given him, when he was still a subject, the Divine promise and sanction of royalty. He might, had he chosen, have followed a higher and purer guidance than that of his own personal misgiving and his own arbitrary will. The error which he committed was this-he trusted in policy, not in the Living God. "It was," says Dean Stanley, "precisely the policy of Abder-Rahman, Caliph of Spain, when he arrested the movement of his subjects to Mecca, by the erection of a Holy Place of the Zeca at Cordova, and of Abd-el-Malik when he built the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, because of his quarrel with the authorities at Mecca." He was not guilty of revolt, for he acted under prophetic sanction; nor of idolatry, for he did not abandon the worship of Jehovah; but he broke the unity and tampered with the spiritual conception of the national worship. From worshipping God under a gross material symbol, the Israelites gradually learnt to worship other gods altogether; and the venerable sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel prepared the way for the temples of Ashtaroth and Bethel at Samaria and Jezreel. The religion of the kingdom of Israel at last sank lower than that of the kingdom of Judah against which it had revolted. The sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, is the sin again and again repeated in the policy, half-worldly, half religious, which has prevailed through large tracts of ecclesiastical history. Many are the forms of worship which, with high pretensions, have been nothing else but so many various and opposite ways of breaking the Second Commandment. Many a time has the end been held to justify the means, and the Divine character been degraded by the pretence, or even the sincere intention, of upholding His cause, for the sake of secular aggrandizement; for the sake of binding together good systems, which it was feared would otherwise fall to pieces; for the sake of supporting the faith of the multitude for fear they should otherwise fall away to rival sects, or lest the enemy should come and take away their place and nation. False arguments have been used in support of religious truths, false miracles promulgated or tolerated, false readings in the sacred text defended And so the faith of mankind has been undermined by the very means intended to preserve it. The whole subsequent history is a record of the mode by which, with the best intentions, a Church and nation may be corrupted.
This view of Dean Stanley is confirmed by another wise teacher, Professor F.D. Maurice. Jeroboam, he says,
"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 would therefore seek 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."
And thus, to quote once more, "The departure from spiritual principles out of political motives surely leads to destruction, and is here portrayed for all times."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v16 (See Scofield "Jdg 8:1").
saying
(See Scofield "Jdg 8:1").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v16 Jeroboam King over Israel
Jeroboam King over Israel
v. 16. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, paid no heed to their demands, 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! the proverbial call bidding every man to go home. Now see to thine own house, David! Rehoboam was told that he should make arrangements to rule over his own tribe as best he might, for Israel would not acknowledge him as king. The rebellious shout with which the secession was formally proclaimed, showed the deep-rooted antipathy of the northern tribes against Judah and the kings out of that tribe, which, in turn, was caused by their indifference toward Jehovah and the Law given by Him. So Israel departed unto their tents.
Read full note →
v. 17. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, members of the northern tribes who had settled in the southern part of Canaan, Rehoboam reigned over them; here he was acknowledged as king without question.
v. 18. Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute, 1Ki 4:6, who was to treat with the rebels and appease them, as the officer in charge of all work by conscription; and all Israel, in a rebellious rage, stoned him with stones that he died. Therefore King Rehoboam, who had remained in the neighborhood of Shechem, made speed, he had to make use of all his power and energy, to get him up to his chariot to flee to Jerusalem.
v. 19. So Israel rebelled against, and thus seceded from, the house of David unto this day, the time when this account was written.
v. 20. And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, when their representatives brought the news to their several homes, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, a special assembly having been called for the purpose of choosing a king, and made him king over all Israel, considering him, with his grievance against Solomon and his family, the logical man to hold this position. There was none that followed the house of David but the tribe of Judah only, which included Benjamin and the cities of Simeon.
v. 21. 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, trained soldiers, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to subdue the rebellion by force of arms.
v. 22. But the word of God came unto Shemaiah, the man of God, saying,
v. 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, all those who had cast their lot with the southern monarchy, saying,
v. 24. Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, not undertake the proposed campaign, nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel. Return every man to his house; for this thing is from Me, the events now happening came about thus by divine dispensation. They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord, they obeyed His command, and returned to depart, they desisted from their plan, according to the word of the Lord.
v. 25. Then Jeroboam built Shechem in Mount Ephraim and dwelt therein, making this city his residence; and went out from thence and built Penuel. In both cases the fortifying of the cities is referred to, for Jeroboam intended to secure his territory against attacks from the south.
v. 26. And Jeroboam, considering ways and means of bringing about a firmer union among the northern tribes, said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David, since the circumstances were such as he saw before his eyes;
v. 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. He probably gauged the character, the fickleness, of the people correctly.
v. 28. Whereupon the king took counsel and made two calves of gold, he cast these molten images as the result of his deliberations, and said unto them, the people of Israel, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; they had, in his opinion, made the festival journeys often enough, he wanted them to cease; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt! Cf Exo 32:4-8. While Jeroboam may have intended the images to represent Jehovah, the true God, it was a false worship which he hereby introduced, for the Lord had chosen Jerusalem as the place where His Temple was to stand, and it was there that the priests and Levites were busy in His service.
v. 29. And he set the one in Bethel, near the southern boundary of the northern tribes, and the other put he in Dan, in the extreme northern part of Israel’s territory.
v. 30. And this thing became a sin, it resulted in open idolatry; for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan, the great distance did not hinder them from making their pilgrimages to this city.
v. 31. And he made an house of high places, a temple, or shrine, for the images in both cities, and made priests of the lowest of the people, literally, "from the mass of the people," from all classes, which were not of the sons of Levi. He therefore transgressed the commandment of God also in this respect.
v. 32. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, instead of the seventh selected by the Lord, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, the Feast of Tabernacles, the harvest festival proper; and he offered upon the altar, he ascended the incline to the large altar while the priests offered the sacrifice. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
v. 33. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart, without the command of Jehovah; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel, to take the place of at least one of the great festivals commanded by Jehovah; and he offered upon the altar and burned incense, he deliberately planned and made ready to take part in the worship which he had instituted. All apparent worship of Jehovah which men devise in their own hearts, all sacrifices and works which are made by the commandment of men and are intended to merit the favor of God are an abomination before the Lord and a transgression of the First Commandment.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv16, 18, 20, 21 all Israel
all Israel
Here "Israel" represents all he men of Israel capable of fighting. "All Israel" is a generalization which means almost all the men of Israel. AT: "all the men of Israel" (See: Synecdoche and Hyperbole and Generalization)
Read full note →
What share do we have in David?
"Share" here is a metonym meaning a part, involvement, or interest. This question can be translated as a simple statement. AT: "We will have no part in the family of David." (See: Rhetorical Question and Metonymy)
We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse
"Son of Jesse" here is a metonym for David, a son of Jesse. "Inheritance" is a metonym for the part left for these people from David's successes. AT: "We will have nothing to do with the descendants of Jesse" (See: Metonymy)
Go to your tents, Israel
"Tents" here is a metonym representing a person's place of residence. AT: "Go to your homes, people of Israel" (See: Metonymy)
Now see to your own house, David
"House" here is a metonym for David's lineage of power and prestige. AT: "Now take care of your own kingdom, descendant of David" (See: Metonymy)
translationWords
Israel
David
inherit
Jesse
tent
house
kingdom of Judah
Rehoboam
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv18, 21 12:18 Adoniram served under both David (2 Sam 20:24)…
12:18 Adoniram served under both David (2 Sam 20:24) and Solomon (1 Kgs 4:6; 5:13-14). His death by stoning showed the folly of Rehoboam’s decision to send the unpopular supervisor of the labor force to restore order in the north.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.