Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived in it; and he went out from there, and built Penuel.
Parallel Translations
-
Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived in it; and he went out from there, and built Penuel.
-
Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel.
-
Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill-country of Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and he went out from thence, and built Penuel.
Cross-references (11)
Passages linked to 1 Kings 12:25 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Judges 8:17 He broke down the tower of Penuel, and killed the men of the city.
- Judges 8:8 He went up there to Penuel, and spoke to them in the same way; and the men of Penuel answered him as the men of Succoth had answered.
- Genesis 32:30-31 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” The sun rose on him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped because of his thigh.
- Judges 9:45-49 Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city and killed the people in it. He beat down the city and sowed it with salt. When all the men of the tower of Shechem heard of it, they entered into the stronghold of the house of Elberith. Abimelech was told that all the men of the tower of Shechem were gathered together. Abimelech went up to Mount Zalmon, he and all the people who were with him; and Abimelech took an ax in his hand, and cut down a bough from the trees, and took it up, and laid it on his shoulder. Then he said to the people who were with him, “What you have seen me do, make haste, and do as I have done!” All the people likewise each cut down his bough, followed Abimelech, and put them at the base of the stronghold, and set the stronghold on fire over them, so that all the people of the tower of Shechem died also, about a thousand men and women.
- Judges 9:1 Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother’s brothers, and spoke with them and with all the family of the house of his mother’s father, saying,
- 1 Kings 9:15 This is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised, to build Yahweh’s house, his own house, Millo, Jerusalem’s wall, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer.
- 1 Kings 9:17-18 Solomon built in the land Gezer, Beth Horon the lower, Baalath, Tamar in the wilderness,
- 1 Kings 12:1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.
- 1 Kings 15:17 Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might not allow anyone to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah.
- 1 Kings 16:24 He bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver; and he built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built Samaria, after the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill.
- 2 Chronicles 11:5-12 Rehoboam lived in Jerusalem, and built cities for defense in Judah. He built Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa, Beth Zur, Soco, Adullam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zorah, Aijalon, and Hebron, which are fortified cities in Judah and in Benjamin. He fortified the strongholds, and put captains in them, and stores of food, oil and wine. He put shields and spears in every city, and made them exceedingly strong. Judah and Benjamin belonged to him.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (18 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 1Ki 12:25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim,…
1Ki 12:25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel.
Ver. 25. Then Jeroboam built Shechem.] Shechem had been ruined and sowed with salt, {Jdg 9:45} it had been rebuilt, {1Ki 12:1} but now made a royal city, as being in meditullio regni, in the middle of the kingdom: as Constantinople, for its situation, is said to be a city fatally founded, to command a great part of the world. {a}
Read full note →
And built Penuel.] Beyond Jordan, to be a bulwark there.
{a} Turk. Hist.
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 Jeroboam built Shechem, i.e. he repaired, and enlarged, and…
Jeroboam built Shechem, i.e. he repaired, and enlarged, and fortified it; for it had been ruined long since, Jdg 9:45. He might choose it as a place both auspicious, because here the foundation of his monarchy was laid; and commodious, as being near the frontiers of his kingdom.
Penuel; a place beyond Jordan; of which see Gen 32:30; Jdg 8:17; to secure that part of his dominions.
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 We have here the beginning of the reign of…
We have here the beginning of the reign of Jeroboam. He built Shechem first and then Penuel - beautified and fortified them, and probably had a palace in each of them for himself (Kg1 12:25), the former in Ephraim, the latter in Gad, on the other side Jordan. This might be proper; but he formed another project for the establishing of his kingdom which was fatal to the interests of religion in it.
I. That which he designed was by some effectual means to secure those to himself who had now chosen him for their king, and to prevent their return to the house of David, Kg1 12:26, Kg1 12:27. It seems, 1. He was jealous of the people, afraid that, some time or other, they would kill him and go again to Rehoboam. Many that have been advanced in one tumult have been hurled down in another. Jeroboam could not put any confidence in the affections of his people, though now they seemed extremely fond of him; for what is got by wrong and usurpation cannot be enjoyed nor kept with any security or satisfaction. 2. He was distrustful of the promise of God, could not take his word that, if he would keep close to his duty, God would build him a sure house (Kg1 11:38); but he would contrive ways and means, and sinful ones too, for his own safety. A practical disbelief of God's all-sufficiency is at the bottom of all our treacherous departures from him.
Read full note →
II. The way he took to do this was by keeping the people from going up to Jerusalem to worship. That was the place God had chosen, to put his name there. Solomon's temple was there, which God had, in the sight of all Israel, and in the memory of many now living, taken solemn possession of in a cloud of glory. At the altar there the priest of the Lord attended, there all Israel were to keep the feasts, and thither they were to bring their sacrifices. Now,
1. Jeroboam apprehended that, if the people continued to do this, they would in time return to the house of David, allured by the magnificence both of the court and of the temple. If they cleave to their old religion, they will go back to their old king. We may suppose, if he had treated with Rehoboam for the safe conduct of himself and his people to and from Jerusalem at the times appointed for their solemn feasts, it would not have been denied him; therefore he fears not their being driven back by force, but their going back voluntarily to Rehoboam.
2. He therefore dissuaded them from going up to Jerusalem, pretending to consult their ease: "It is too much for you to go so far to worship God, Kg1 12:28. It is a heavy yoke, and it is time to shake it off; you have gone long enough to Jerusalem" (so some read it); "the temple, now that you are used to it, does not appear so glorious and sacred as it did at first" (sensible glories wither by degrees in men's estimation); "you have greed yourselves from other burdens, free yourselves from this: why should we now be tied to one place any more than in Samuel's time?"
3. He provided for the assistance of their devotion at home. Upon consultation with some of his politicians, he came to this resolve, to set up two golden calves, as tokens or signs of the divine presence, and persuade the people that they might as well stay at home and offer sacrifice to those as go to Jerusalem to worship before the ark: and some are so charitable as to think they were made to represent the mercy-seat and the cherubim over the ark; but more probably he adopted the idolatry of the Egyptians, in whose land he had sojourned for some time and who worshipped their god Apis under the similitude of a bull or calf. (1.) He would not be at the charge of building a golden temple, as Solomon had done; two golden calves are the most that he can afford. (2.) He intended, no doubt, by these to represent, or rather make present, not any false god, as Moloch or Chemosh, but the true God only, the God of Israel, the God that brought them up out of the land of Egypt, as he declares, Kg1 12:28. So that it was no violation of the first commandment, but the second. And he chose thus to engage the people's devotion because he knew there were many among them so in love with images that for the sake of the calves they would willingly quit God's temple, where all images were forbidden. (3.) He set up two, by degrees to break people off from the belief of the unity of the godhead, which would pave the way to the polytheism of the Pagans. He set up these two at Dan and Beth-el (one the utmost border of his country northward), the other southward, as if they were the guardians and protectors of the kingdom. Beth-el lay close to Judah. He set up one there, to tempt those of Rehoboam's subjects over to him who were inclined to image-worship, in lieu of those of his subjects that would continue to go to Jerusalem. He set up the other at Dan, for the convenience of those that lay most remote, and because Micah's images had been set up there, and great veneration paid to them for many ages, Jdg 18:30, Jdg 18:31. Beth-el signifies the house of God, which gave some colour to the superstition; but the prophet called it Beth-aven, the house of vanity, or iniquity.
4. The people complied with him herein, and were fond enough of the novelty: They went to worship before the one, even unto Dan (Kg1 12:30), to that at Dan first because it was first set up, or even to that at Dan, though it lay such a great way off. Those that thought it much to go to Jerusalem, to worship God according to his institution, made no difficulty of going twice as far, to Dan, to worship him according to their own inventions. Or they are said to go to one of the calves at Dan because Abijah, king of Judah, within twenty years, recovered Beth-el (Ch2 13:19), and it is likely removed the golden calf, or forbade the use of it, and then they had only that at Dan to go to. This became a sin; and a great sin it was, against the express letter of the second commandment. God had sometimes dispensed with the law concerning worshipping in one place, but never allowed the worship of him by images. Hereby they justified their fathers in making the calf at Horeb, though God had so fully shown his displeasure against them for it and threatened to visit for it in the day of visitation (Exo 32:34), so that it was as great a contempt of God's wrath as it was of his law; and thus they added sin to sin. Bishop Patrick quotes a saying of the Jews, That till Jeroboam's time the Israelites sucked but one calf, but from that time they sucked two.
5. Having set up the gods, he fitted up accommodations for them; and wherein he varied from the divine appointment we are here told, which intimates that in other things he imitated what was done in Judah (Kg1 12:32) as well as he could. See how one error multiplied into many. (1.) He made a house of high-places, or of altars, one temple at Dan, we may suppose, and another at Beth-el (Kg1 12:31), and in each many altars, probably complaining of it as an inconvenience that in the temple at Jerusalem there was but one. The multiplying of altars passed with some for a piece of devotion, but God, by the prophet, puts another construction upon it, Hos 8:11. Ephraim has made many altars to sin. (2.) He made priests of the lowest of the people; and the lowest of the people were good enough to be priests to his calves, and too good. He made priests from the extremest parts of the people, that is, some out of every corner of the country, whom he ordered to reside among their neighbours, to instruct them in his appointments and reconcile them to them. Thus were they dispersed as the Levites, but were not of the sons of Levi. But the priests of the high-laces, or altars, he ordered to reside in Beth-el, as the priests at Jerusalem (Kg1 12:32), to attend the public service. (3.) The feast of tabernacles, which God had appointed on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, he adjourned to the fifteenth day of the eighth month (Kg1 12:32), the month which he devised of his own heart, to show his power in ecclesiastical matters, Kg1 12:33. The passover and pentecost he observed in their proper season, or did not observe them at all, or with little solemnity in comparison with this. (4.) He himself assuming a power to make priests, no marvel if he undertook to do the priests' work with his own hands: He offered upon the altar. This is twice mentioned (Kg1 12:32, Kg1 12:33), as also that he burnt incense. This was connived at in him because it was of a piece with the rest of his irregularities; but in king Uzziah it was immediately punished with the plague of leprosy. He did it himself, to make himself look great among the people and to get the reputation of a devout man, also to grace the solemnity of his new festival, with which, it is likely, at this time he joined the feast of the dedication of his altar. And thus, [1.] Jeroboam sinned himself, yet perhaps excused himself to the world and his own conscience with this, that he did not do so ill as Solomon did, who worshipped other gods. [2.] He made Israel to sin, drew them off from the worship of God and entailed idolatry upon their seed. And hereby they were punished for deserting the thrones of the house of David. The learned Mr. Whiston, in his chronology, for the adjusting of the annals of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, supposes that Jeroboam changed the calculation of the year and made it to contain but eleven months, and that by those years the reigns of the kings of Israel are measured till Jehu's revolution and no longer, so that during this interval eleven years of the annals of Judah answer to twelve in those of Israel.
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 If this people go up to do sacrifice in…
If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem,.... In the temple there, three times in the year, which all the males were obliged to, besides other times, when they had occasion to offer sacrifice, which they might do nowhere else:
then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their Lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah; being drawn by the magnificence of the temple, the beauty and order of worship in it, the holiness of the place, and the grandeur of the royal court, and the persuasions of the priests and prophets of the Lord, both to keep to the service of the Lord, and to obey their lawful sovereign; and besides, they might be in fear they should be taken up and punished as traitors, and therefore would choose to submit to Rehoboam, that they might have the liberty of sacrificing without fear; Jeroboam seems conscious himself that Rehoboam was their liege lord and lawful king:
Read full note →
and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah; his fears ran so high, that he should not only lose his kingdom, but his life, unless some step was taken to make an alteration in religious worship.
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 Shechem - He repaired, and enlarged, and fortified it;…
Shechem - He repaired, and enlarged, and fortified it; for it had been ruined long since, Judg. ix, 45. He might chuse it as a place both auspicious, because here the foundation of his monarchy was laid; and commodious, as being near the frontiers of his kingdom. Penuel - A place beyond Jordan; to secure that part of his dominions.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 1Ki 12:25. Jeroboam built Shechem — He repaired, enlarged,…
1Ki 12:25. Jeroboam built Shechem — He repaired, enlarged, and fortified it; for it had been ruined long since, Jdg 9:45. He might choose it as a place both auspicious, because here the foundation of his monarchy was laid; and commodious, as being near the frontiers of his kingdom. And built Penuel — A place beyond Jordan; to secure that part of his dominions.
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 Built Shechem - In the sense of “enlarged and…
Built Shechem - In the sense of “enlarged and fortified.” See Dan 4:30. The first intention of Jeroboam seems to have been to make Shechem his capital, and therefore he immediately set about its fortification. So also he seems to have fortified Penuel for the better security of his Trans-Jordanic possessions (marginal reference).
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 Built, or "had built," while Roboam was preparing for…
Built, or "had built," while Roboam was preparing for his invasion. (Salien) --- Sichem and Phanuel had been ruined by Abimelech, and by Gedeon, Judges viii. 17., and ix. 45. (Calmet) --- By means of these fortresses, he secured both sides of the Jordan. (Haydock) --- Jeroboam afterwards fixed his residence at Thirsa, where the court was kept, till Amri built Samaria.
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).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain B.—The establishment of the kingdom of Israel by Jeroboam
B.—The establishment of the kingdom of Israel by Jeroboam
1Ki_12:25-33
Read full note →
25Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. 26And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: 27if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord [Jehovah] at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord,11 even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. 28Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you12 to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods,13 O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 29And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan. 30And this thing became [was14] a sin: for the people went to worship before the one,15 even unto Dan.16 31And he made a house17 of high places, and made priests of the lowest [mass18] of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. 32And 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 offered19 upon the altar. So20 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. 33So he offered9 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 heart21; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered9 upon the altar, and burnt incense.
Exegetical and Critical
1Ki_12:25.—Then Jeroboam built Shechem. The first thing which Jeroboam undertook after his accession was the building of fortresses to protect his realm. בָּנָה means fortified here, as Shechem and Penuel were built long before. He chose Shechem immediately as his residence (וישׁב), no doubt, for the same reason that the ten tribes had assembled there (see on 1Ki_12:1). It does not follow from וַיֵּצֵא, that he at once removed to Penuel (Ewald, Thenius), for it only says: he built, and it is not added that he lived there. Penuel, too, did not belong to the tribe of Ephraim, but was in Gad, beyond Jordan, according to some, northward, and others, southward of Jabbok. There was a tower there formerly, which Gideon destroyed (Jdg_8:17). Jeroboam can scarcely be supposed to have fortified the place on account of the caravan road to Damascus passing by it (Keil), or to subdue the Ammonites and Moabites again (Duncker), but to secure the territory beyond Jordan against any attacks from Judah. There is no doubt that he built these fortifications by tribute-labor, like Solomon (1Ki_9:15 sq.); the “grievous service” (1Ki_12:4) did not, therefore, cease under him, and the complaint against Rehoboam appears all the more like a pretext.
1Ki_12:26-28. And Jeroboam said in his heart, &c. 1Ki_12:26. Jeroboam did not seek to establish his kingdom outwardly only, but also inwardly; and to attach the people permanently to himself. The political union with Judah was indeed broken, but the religious one still remained. The people still went up to the yearly feasts at the central place of worship in Jerusalem; this practice seems, from 2Ch_11:16 sq., to have extended even, so that Jeroboam became anxious lest his people should turn to Rehoboam and dethrone him. He therefore sought to break this bond also. We can scarcely admit that וַיִּוָּעַץ 1Ki_12:28 ought to be supplemented thus: “With his counsellors or the heads of the people, who had helped to make him king” (Keil), for the text would certainly not have passed over so important a circumstance as that the representatives of the people concurred with him in changing the place of worship. He reflected about it alone, and came to the following resolution—Vulgate: Et excogitato consilio fecit duos vitulos; Dereser: “it occurred to him to make two golden calves.” Two golden calves, i.e., young bulls, as appears from Psa_106:19 sq.; they were molten (1Ki_14:9), probably of brass, and then overlaid with gold (Isa_40:19). The expression רַב־לָכֶם is never used in the sense of: it is desiring too much from you; i.e. it is too hard for you, but: it is (now) enough, i. e. you have gone up to Jerusalem long enough, cease doing so. The Sept. translates ἱκανούσθω, the Vulgate has: Nolite ultra adscendere in Jerusalem. Cf. Deu_1:6; Deu_2:3; Eze_44:6; 1Ki_19:4; 2Sa_24:16. The words, Behold thy god(s) which, &c., are exactly the same as the people used when setting up the golden calf in the wilderness (Exo_32:4-8) and refer unmistakably to them. They are not plural (thy gods which, &c.) any more than when used in the former case, for they only refer to one calf, and Nehemiah (1Ki_9:18) uses them in the singular; אלהים, moreover, is construed with the plural of the predicate (cf.2 Sam. 1Ki_7:23 with 1Ch_17:21). It is certain that Jeroboam did not wish to introduce the worship of two or more gods; but the plural being used in this place may indicate that “the knowledge of the unity of God is lost in every form of nature-worship” (Von Gerlach), and that image-worship is closely related to polytheism (Ewald). The bringing them up out of Egypt was God’s act, by which he made Israel a separate nation, creating it, as it were, and choosing it at the same time for his own, from out all peoples. This was the real historical proof that the Almighty God, who has no equal either in heaven or earth, was Israel’s God; therefore the God who brought Israel out of Egypt is contrasted, as the only true God, with the vain gods of the heathens (Jos_24:17; Jdg_2:1; Jdg_2:12; Jdg_6:13). The people Israel only knew him to be God who brought them out of Egypt; and should they worship the golden calf as their God, they must, as Aaron and Jeroboam did, before everything else, attribute to it the deliverance out of Egypt. We cannot endorse the ordinary explanation, that Jeroboam meant to say: Non est nova religio, hoc cultu jam olim patres nostri in deserto usi sunt auctore ipso Aharone (Seb. Schmidt); for if the history of the golden calf were known to the people, and Jeroboam reminded them of it, he must also have known that Jehovah’s wrath waxed hot on account of that sin, that Moses ground the calf to powder, and that all the worshippers were destroyed (Ex. 32:10; 20:28). Nothing could be more ill-advised than an appeal to this event, and it would have been the direct opposite of any recommendation of the new worship. It appears rather that the narrative, giving as it does Jeroboam’s praise of the golden calves in the words the people had used at the sight of the golden calves in the wilderness, wishes to convey the idea that those images were a renewal of the sin committed in the wilderness, and that, therefore, Jeroboam’s undertaking would, sooner or later, have a similar end. 1Ki_12:30 also implies this, and 2Ki_17:7 sq. expressly declares it.
1Ki_12:29-30. And he set the one in Bethel, &c., 1Ki_12:29. Bethel was on the southern, and Dan on the northern boundary of the kingdom. The situation of these places explains why Jeroboam chose them. He wished to make things easy for the people; the northern tribes could readily reach one place of worship, and the southern tribes the other, and they would so much the sooner become habituated to the new regulation. At the same time also it was in opposition to the Judah-centralizing of worship. This was another reason for having two calves instead of one. It is generally thought that he chose both places, because they had been regarded before as sacred places for worship. This may have influenced him in choosing Bethel, but scarcely in respect of Dan, for the narrative in Judges 18. by no means proves that the latter place was looked on with respect by the people as a place of worship. Had Jeroboam sought only sacred places, there were several (e. g. Shiloh) that were much more esteemed as such than Dan. This thing became a sin, 1Ki_12:30. Jeroboam was guilty of great sin in making images of oxen, contrary to the fundamental law, and in setting them up in two places remote from each other, and thus destroying the unity of worship which has been the bond of union for the whole people. The text means what is afterwards always spoken of as “the sin of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin” (1Ki_14:16; 1Ki_15:26; 1Ki_15:30; 1Ki_15:34; 1Ki_16:2; 1Ki_16:19; 1Ki_16:26; 1Ki_16:31; 1Ki_21:22; 1Ki_22:53; 2Ki_3:3; 2Ki_10:29; 2Ki_10:31; 2Ki_13:2; 2Ki_13:6; 2Ki_13:11; 2Ki_14:24; 2Ki_15:9; 2Ki_15:18; 2Ki_15:24; 2Ki_15:28; 2Ki_17:21-22; 2Ki_23:15). The people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.לִפְנֵי הָאֶחַד clearly refers to the הָאֶחַד twice repeated in 1Ki_12:29, and cannot therefore be translated as Ewald gives it: “the people, as it were one man:” neither does it mean that the people only went to one image, that at Dan, 1Ki_13:1. “Unto Dan,” moreover, cannot be joined to הָעָם and translated, “the people unto Dan; i.e., the people in the whole kingdom as far as Dan” (Keil). The sentence is evidently abbreviated, and לפני האחד is only put once instead of twice, because the repetition after the double אחד in 1Ki_12:29 is understood; “האחד is alter here in the sense of alteruter” (Cassel). The people went to both, even to the distant Dan. Vulgate: ibat enim populus ad adorandum vitulum usque in Dan.
1Ki_12:31-32. And he made an house of high places, &c., 1Ki_12:31. For the so-called high places, see above on 1Ki_3:2. As the “high places” in 2Ki_23:15 is simply הַבָּמָה, and the high places are contrasted with Jehovah’s house in 1Ki_3:1-2, the word here certainly does not mean a temple, properly speaking, but probably a kind of cell for the image. Ewald makes it out “a splendid temple,” and says: “this temple evidently lasted many years and probably rivalled that at Jerusalem; later too, this temple was regarded as the great sanctuary of the kingdom.” We find not a single word of all this in the Scripture, however. Jeroboam made priests of the מִקְצוֹת of the people; this does not mean, from the lowest of the people (Luther), but, from all classes of them (Gen_19:4; Eze_33:2; Jer_51:31); he made any one that wished a priest. Thus he broke the law which gave the right to the tribe of Levi alone (Numbers 16). He did this either because he wanted to abolish the institution of the Levitical priesthood, or because the Levites and priests, not willing to participate in the service of the golden calves, left the kingdom (2Ch_11:13). And Jeroboam ordained a feast, 1Ki_12:32. חָּג alone, or הֶחָג signifies the feast of tabernacles, because it was the greatest and most frequented of the yearly feasts (the feast of harvest, cf. on 1Ki_8:2). This feast fell on the seventh month, as the law commanded (Lev. 23:34; 34:41). Jeroboam changed the time to prevent the ten tribes meeting the other two, or having any intercourse with them. He fixed it in the eighth month, because the northern and more distant tribes would thus have time to complete their harvest, and could more easily take the journey to Bethel, where he himself also kept the feast (we need not say that the harvest was later in the northern than the southern parts; see Thenius on the place). The feasts were always announced beforehand (Lev_23:4); if this were done after the feast at Jerusalem was over, it could not possibly be celebrated there. Jeroboam did not observe the same day of the month, the 15th, “on account of the weak, who were offended at his innovations” (Keil), for in that case he would have kept it a month sooner, but he did so because the months and weeks were counted by the new and full moons, and the 15th was the day of the full moon. Thus there was simply a reason derived from the calendar why that day was retained.
1Ki_12:33. And he offered upon the altar, &c. וַיַּעַל עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ three times in 1Ki_12:32-33 cannot be translated (as Thenius gives them) once (1Ki_12:32) by: “he sacrificed upon the altar,” and two other times (1Ki_12:33) by: “he went to the altar;” they must mean the same each time. עלה means here, as usual, to go up, to mount; the Sept. correctly gives ἀνέβη three times, the Vulgate has ascendens 1Ki_12:32, and ascendit twice, 1Ki_12:33. The altar had a raised part in the middle, to which an ascent [incline?—E. H.] led up (Sym. des Mos. Kult. I. s. 480). It is clear that יעל cannot be translated every time, as Luther, De Wette, and Keil give it, he sacrificed, for in 1Ki_12:32 it is distinctly distinguished from זָבַח, and in 1Ki_12:33לְהַקְטִיר is added at the end; this does not mean: and he offered incense (De Wette), or while he offered incense (Philippson), but only to offer incense; there is no sense in: he sacrificed to offer incense. The first יעל, 1Ki_12:32, means, that Jeroboam took part in the feast; the second signifies especially his presence at the first feast in Bethel, and the third is only to be connected with the second, on account of the long intermediary clause in 1Ki_12:33, joining להקטיר with it, and so leading on to להקטיר 1Ki_13:1. In fact 1Ki_12:33 forms the transition to the next section chap. 13., which is evidently derived from another source, and relates what happened at the celebration of the festival at Bethel. Jeroboam ascended the altar to burn sacrifice, and just as he was about to do so, a man of God came, &c. (1Ki_13:1). What 1Ki_12:33 repeats from 1Ki_12:32, as well as the words, “which he had devised of his own heart,” shows the writer’s intention, i.e., to display the arbitrary nature of Jeroboam’s proceedings, which called forth the occurrence of chap, 1Ki_13:1 sq.
Historical and Ethical
1. The religious institutions which, next to the fortifications, served to establish Jeroboam’s kingdom are of the greatest importance, for they formed the real and lasting wall of separation between the two kingdoms Israel and Judah, that existed side by side for hundreds of years. Through these institutions the division mentioned in the above section became an incurable schism for all future generations, thus determining the whole of the after-history of the people. To understand it thoroughly in all its bearings, we must, at the outset, take into consideration Jeroboam’s point of view, and the motives which impelled him. The history makes him utter these himself clearly enough in 1Ki_12:26-27; they were of a purely political nature. He took those measures from no religious convictions, not to do away with abuses, in short, not for the sake of God and conscience, but to secure to himself and his dynasty the dominion over the newly founded kingdom, and to withdraw it forever from the house of David. He well knew that a political separation without a religious one too would not be lasting with a people whose distinct existence from other nations only depended on their common religious basis. To introduce a completely new religion, which should displace the faith of their fathers, would have been very dangerous to his dominion; so he thought of modifying it in such particulars as he was sure would be agreeable to the people, who were disposed to build a strong, impregnable wall of separation between Israel and Judah. All the kings of Israel inherited the principle on which Jeroboam acted, however much the dynasty changed, until the dissolution of the kingdom. We have here, then, the type of that political absolutism which makes the national religion subservient to the interests of a dynasty, which holds that the secular power is justified in prescribing the faith and form of worship for the subjects. This absolutism is found not only in monarchies but in republics—among crowned heads as among democrats—it can be traced through the entire history of the world, and has appeared in Christendom as Cæsaro-papism. In Israel the prophets opposed it, and as it was firmly adhered to from the beginning in that kingdom, we find, accordingly, the prophets were engaged in a perpetual struggle with it.
2. The germ of all the changes Jeroboam wrought was the erection of two golden calves. They were not actual idols, i.e., images that were supposed to have real connection with the divinity they represented, as among the heathens (cf. my treatise, Der Salomonische Tempel, s. 270 sq.), but symbols of Jehovah, the God of Israel; the whole history of Israel shows that Jeroboam did not intend to introduce idolatry or polytheism. The God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, thus showing Himself to be the true God (cf. Cassel, König Jeroboam, s. 6), was to remain, but he did not wish Him to appear to have His throne and dwelling-place in Jerusalem alone, but also in the new kingdom, and to be visibly present there. He wishes to attach the people to his kingdom by a visible representation of Jehovah. But this visible representation was in direct opposition to the fundamental Mosaic law, which just as expressly forbids the making an image of Jehovah, as the worshipping of other gods beside Him (Exo_20:3-4). If God be one, and everything in heaven and earth, and in the water under the earth, only his creature, it follows necessarily that He can have no similitude; nothing out of Him can represent Him. Every image is a practical denial of his incomparable and therefore invisible being, an untruth which, as such, can never make Him known, but, on the contrary, destroys the knowledge of Him and leads to idolatry. For the nearer man comes to the life of nature the less power he has to abstract himself from the natural and visible, and to comprehend the spiritual and invisible by itself, i.e., to distinguish the sign from the thing signified. If God be worshipped in an image, it is scarcely possible to avoid worshipping the image itself as God, hence there is but a short step from a representation of God to idolatry, which again, in spite of everything, leads to polytheism (Rom_1:23). This is why the Mosaic fundamental law places the prohibition of every likeness of God in immediate juxtaposition against that of idolatry. To violate this command was to lay the axe at the root of the tree of spiritual life planted in the chosen people. This was “the sin of Jeroboam, wherewith he made Israel to sin.” When he sought to give his kingdom durability by erecting images, contrary to the condition so emphatically laid before him by Ahijah, namely, keeping Jehovah’s laws (1Ki_11:38), he brought this very germ of destruction and dissolution into it; this our writer expressly notices in his account of the fall of the kingdom of Israel (2Ki_17:7 sq.). The question whether the Old-Testament law against every representation of God extends unconditionally to the New-Testament economy, has, as is well known, been answered variously. While the reformed church stretches the Old-Testament law still further, and in contradiction with the Mosaic worship, which consisted wholly in symbols, rejects every symbol and representation in the churches, the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches not only allow representations of Him who walked on earth in the form of a servant, but of God himself, only claiming that they be not worshipped or prayed to. Though we do not approve of an exaggerated spiritualism, yet the representations of God as an invisible being are of very questionable worth, and should at least not be placed in buildings for public worship. Cf. Isa_40:18; 1Ti_6:16.
3. It is almost universally acknowledged that Jeroboam’s long residence in Egypt (1Ki_11:40; 1Ki_12:2) led him to choose images of bulls to represent Jehovah, and that there was reference to the Egyptian cultus of Apis and Mnevis. But we have the clearest evidence of the contrary. The images were to represent (according to 1Ki_12:28), that God who “brought Israel out of Egypt,” i.e., out of the “house of bondage,” from service to an idolatrous people, by great judgments on the latter, even the destruction of their entire army, and had separated them as from all nations, so especially from Egypt (Exo_6:6; Exo_7:5; 1Ki_8:51-53). To choose a specifically Egyptian divinity in order to represent this God would have been the greatest contradiction; for it would have meant so much as: the God who overthrew the Egyptians and brought you out of Egypt was an Egyptian deity; but the clause, “who brought thee out of Egypt,” contains the most emphatic opposition to any Egyptian idol. Had the bull-images of Jeroboam been borrowed from Egypt, we should find other traces of Egyptian worship in that of the ten tribes, but none are to be found. All the gods that were worshipped by them, or afterwards by Judah, were without exception those of anterior Asia. Besides this, Apis and Mnevis were different gods, while Jeroboam wished to make symbols of one and the same deity; and, moreover, they were not images, but living idols, belonging to the Egyptian animal worship, which had always been despised in Israel, and looked on as an abomination (Exo_8:26). The material and the workmanship of the golden calves remind us of anterior Asia, not of Egypt; for the Egyptians had only stone images; they had no images that were cast, golden, or overlaid with gold. There is no necessity for seeking the original of Jeroboam’s golden calves in any particular ancient nation. The bull was, according to the view common to all ancient peoples, especially to those who were agricultural, a symbol of the creative power, and consequently of the highest divinity, from which all life and being emanated. There was no type of divinity so universal in the ancient world as the bull (cf. Creuzer, Symbolik I. s. 318, 505, 747; iv. s. 128, 240; Baur, Symbolik I. s. 177 sq.; Movers, Relig. der Phoniz. s. 373 sq.). If Jeroboam wanted to give an intelligible and acceptable symbol of Jehovah to the people, he could have scarcely chosen anything but the bull, especially as the God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, and thus chosen them as His own (Isa_43:15-17), was adored by them as the Creator of heaven and earth. (The command that refers to the Sabbath day in the decalogue is founded upon the creation in Exo_20:11, and upon the exodus in Deu_5:15). That which is true of Jeroboam’s image is also true of Aaron’s (Exo_32:4), which was much nearer the time of the Exodus from Egypt, and therefore was still less likely to be an imitation of the Egyptian idols.
4. All the changes that Jeroboam made in the worship were calculated, on one hand, to serve his political ends, and likewise, on the other, to be agreeable and desirable to the people of the ten tribes. By setting up images of the deity he gratified the deep-seated instincts of this portion of the people, who, more inclined to nature-life (see the Hist, and Ethic. on above section), in their rudeness and sensuousness, even in the wilderness were not satisfied with an invisible God, but wanted one they could see. He drew the people from the imageless temple at Jerusalem by the erection of two images, and at each extremity of the kingdom; and he not only withdrew them from the one central point of worship which was necessary to the theocratic unity of the people, but he made it easier for the people to attend the new places of worship. By giving the priesthood to any one, not confining himself to the priestly tribe, he destroyed this sacred institution of a tribe of priests, who, being dispersed among all the tribes, were the guardians of the divine law, and of spiritual and religious culture. At the same time he flattered the people thereby, because any one could aspire to the dignity of the priesthood and obtain its emoluments. These he may have lessened in the interests of the people. There would scarcely have been a surer method of destroying the organization of a “kingdom of priests” (Exo_19:6), which had, as such, its central point in the priestly tribe, than this procedure of the king. He retained the feast of tabernacles because it was the most liked and the most frequented, and he held it necessary for the separated tribes to gather regularly around him as their lord, and unite in a common attitude over against Judah. To make this meeting, however, as easy as possible, he fixed on a later month, and thus broke the order of the feast-cycle, arranged according to the number 7. This, then, was the supposed deliverer of his country who, once he had the reins in his hands, was not content with controlling secular things, but so altered the religion of his people as to serve his own political ends, and introduced “what he had devised of his own heart” as the State religion. What was the alleged disposition of Solomon, from which he pretended to free the people, compared with this for which Jeroboam overthrew the fundamental law of the entire nation? “This,” remarks Vilmar (s. 191), “is the way with demagogues and Cæsaro-papalists, who have in all times said, and are still at it, so many criminal and senseless things, now of their care for the people, then of the rights of the ‘community,’ just as Jeroboam here;” and he remarks before (s. 189): “the departure (from political motives) from spiritual principles, which surely leads to destruction, is here portrayed for all times.”
5. The modern historical presentation of the elevation and ordinances of Jeroboam sketches quite another picture from that of the bibilical history. Duncker (Gesch. des Alterthums, I. s. 404) thinks the rebellion of the ten tribes in Shechem was not separation from Judah, but the reverse: “they perpetuated the kingdom and name of Israel, while one single tribe in the south separated themselves from the whole body.… As soon as Jerusalem ceased to be the capital of the State, the Temple ceased to be the place of worship for all the tribes. Jeroboam dedicated anew the old places of sacrifice at Bethel and Dan, and placed priests at both. He built a temple on the height at Bethel, which temple was to be instead of that at Jerusalem for his kingdom. Those beginnings of image-worship of Jehovah, which we may observe in the preceding period of the kingdom, and which continued in David’s time, were now universally and officially recognized. Jeroboam set up a golden bull-image to Jehovah in Dan and Bethel. In this restoration of the Jehovah worship we may also perceive a national reaction against the foreign worship that Solomon introduced in the last years of his reign.” Menzel takes the same view (Staats- und Rel.-Geschichte der Königreiche Israel und Juda, s. 156 sq.): “In the deliberation of Jeroboam in respect of the institutions of public worship, there seemed, doubtless, a right to restore its sacred character to the old national sanctuary (of Bethel) which the new Temple-service at Jerusalem had deprived it of, or at least lessened. This restoration, strictly speaking, took place at Bethel only.” That the people worshipped images is said to have no other proof than “the eloquent representation of the foes of image-worship, who in all ages have tried pretty much in the same way to enforce their views (colored by their own feelings) against the representation of what is thought,” as, for instance, “the prophet Hosea” (Hos_8:6). According to this, there can indeed be no “sin of Jeroboam, wherewith he made Israel to sin;” he seems rather to have done a service to his people; so far from breaking the law, he was rather a reactionist and restorer. And when all the prophets denounced Jeroboam’s form of worship, they only spoke from their peculiar, subjective “manner of feeling,” for Israel always had images of the Deity, and even David “carried the image of Jehovah about with him in his marches” (Duncker, s. 408). We need no proof to show that this is turning the history upside down; it is an example of the unwarrantable style of writing history, which, under the semblance of scientific criticism, utterly ignores the text of the only historical source we have.
Homiletical and Practical
1Ki_12:25-33. How Jeroboam sought to establish his sway, (a) outwardly, by the erection of fortifications; but these alone do not protect and guard a kingdom. A mountain fastness is our God (Psa_71:3; Psa_127:1); (b) inwardly, by ordinances for public worship, which can protect a kingdom only when they are conformable with the word and command of God and are not designed to subserve selfish purposes. [“Jeroboam king of Israel, to the destruction of him and his, did change the ceremonies which God had ordained, into his own, that is, into men’s inventions and detestable blasphemies.” Bullinger.—E. H.].—Würt. Summ.: We should trust ourselves not to fastnesses, but to God, and God wills not to be served otherwise than as He has commanded in His revealed word; our worship and service, therefore, must proceed from faith, and we shall be blessed of Him.
1Ki_12:26. As soon as Jeroboam obtained the wish of his heart, namely, the rulership, he asked no longer about the condition under which it was promised to him and with which it was bound up (1Ki_11:38). How often we forget, when God has granted to us the desire of our hearts, to walk in His ways. He who obtains rulership by the path of rebellion, must always be in fear and anxiety lest he lose it again in the same way, for the populace which today cries Hosanna will, on the morrow, shout crucify, crucify! An evil conscience makes the most stout-hearted and the strongest timid and anxious, so that he sees dangers where there are none, and then to insure his own safety devises wrong and evil instruments. One false step always requires another.
1Ki_12:28-33. The sin of Jeroboam wherewith he caused Israel to sin. (a) He erected images of God against the supreme commandment of God (Exo_20:4). (b) He set aside the prescribed order of the servants of God, and made his own priests, (c) He altered the feast which was a reminder of the great deeds of God, and made it a mere nature-and-harvest feast. That is the greatest tyranny when the ruler of a land makes himself the master also of the faith and conscience of his subjects.—Cramer: In the estimation of the people of the world this policy of Jeroboam is held to be proper, because they consider that religion is to be established, held, and altered, as may be useful and good for the land and the people and the common interest, and that the regimen is not for the sake of the religion, but the religion for the regimen. Consequently Jeroboam acted well and wisely in the matter. But God says, on the other hand, All that I command you, that shall ye observe, ye shall not add thereto (Deu_12:32). For Godliness is not to be regulated by the common weal, but the common weal is to be regulated by Godliness. Every government which employs religious instrumentalities, and interferes with the faith of the people, not for the sake of God and the salvation of souls, but for the attainment of political ends, shares the guilt of the sin of Jeroboam, and involves itself in heavy responsibilities.
1Ki_12:28. Calw. B.: To the perverted man, what he shall do for his God is forthwith too much. In matters of faith and of the homage due to God we should not consider what is convenient and agreeable to the great mass, but should inquire only for what God prescribes in His word. He who conciliates the sensuousness and the untutored ways of the masses, and flatters their unbelief or their superstition, belongs to the false prophets who make broad the way of life. Doctrines, and institutions which depart from the revealed word of God are often praised as progress and seasonable reforms, while in truth they are steps backward, and corrupting innovations. In Christendom we pray no longer to wood and stone, and to golden calves, and think ourselves thereby raised far above a darkened heathenism, but, nevertheless, we often place the creature above the Creator, and abandon ourselves to it with all our love and consideration and service. Behold, the things and persons thou lovest with thy whole heart and strength, these are thy gods. What use of typical representations in the worship of God is permitted, and what is forbidden?
1Ki_12:30. Starke: As a great tree in a forest, when it falls drags down many others with it, so also are many others carried along by the bad example of those who rule, when they fall away from their religion, or sin otherwise grossly against God.
1Ki_12:31. We have in the new covenant no Levitical priesthood indeed, but a pastoral and preaching office which the Lord has instituted, so that, thereby, the body of Christ may be edified (Eph_4:11). He who despises this office, and thinks that any one without distinction and without a lawful calling may exercise it, is a partaker in the sin of Jeroboam. “No one,” says the Augsburg Confession, “shall teach or preach publicly in the church, or administer the sacraments, without due calling.”
1Ki_12:32. The festivals which an entire people celebrate in remembrance of the great deeds of God for them, are the support of their faith and of their life of fellowship. It is to destroy this life when, from prejudice and for the sake of outward wordly considerations, arbitrarily they are altered or abandoned.
1Ki_12:33. As it is good and praise-worthy when kings and princes engage in the service of God along with their subjects, and set them a good example, so also is it blameworthy when they do it only to win the people over to themselves, and to secure their authority over them.
Footnotes:
[11]1Ki_12:27.—[The Sept. has “to the Lord and (or even) to their lord.” The Syr. omits this word Lord altogether. The Vat. Sept. omits the last clause of the verse.
[12]1Ki_12:28.—[Our author prefers the sense of the Sept., Chald., and Vulg., “let it suffice you,” “do not any longer go up.” Keil argues that the Heb. cannot be so translated, and prefers the sense of the A. V.
[13]1Ki_12:28.—[The Heb. אֱלֹהֶיךָ may be taken either in the plural, as in the A.V. and the ancient VV. generally, or in the singular, as in our author’s translation, according to the common Heb. usage. For reasons for the latter see the Exeg. Com.
[14]1Ki_12:30.—[The translation of וַיְהִי became may seem to ignore the fact that Jeroboam’s deed already was a sin in itself.
[15]1Ki_12:30.—[Our author’s translation inserts in brackets “or the other.” See Exeg. Com.
[16]1Ki_12:30.—[The Vat. Sept. adds, “and forsook the house of the Lord.”
[17]1Ki_12:31.—[בֵּית־בָּמוֹת correctly rendered in the A. V. in the singular, since the contrast is with the בֵּית־יְהוָֹה at Jerusalem. The Sept. in translating οἴκους ἐφ ὑψηλῶν, and the Vulg. fana in excelsis, have overlooked the point.
[18]1Ki_12:31.—[The Heb. מִקְצוֹת does not mean so much “from the lowest of the people” as, “from all classes,” “from the mass of the people promiscuously,” in contradistinction to the especial Levitical family. Cf. Gen_47:2; Eze_33:2, and see Exeg. Com. The A. V. is sustained by the Vulg. alone among the ancient VV.
[19]1Ki_12:32.—[The A. V. is here sustained by the Vulg. and Arab. The other VV. give the sense preferred by our author in the Exeg. Com. “Went up to, or upon (i.e. upon the approach to) the altar,” thus translating the last words of 1Ki_12:33, “to burn incense.”
[20]1Ki_12:32.—[The Sept. must have read אֲשֶׁר instead of כֵּן since it translates”—the altar which he made in Bethel.”
[21]1Ki_12:33.—Neh_6:8 clearly shows that the k’ri מלבו is the true reading. All the translations are in accordance with this. The k’tib מלבד gives no sense, since it does not mean seorsum sc. a Judœis (Maurer, Keil); but except, beside. [Keil takes the opposite view of the meaning, and denies the necessity of the change.—F. G.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain Jeroboam built Shechem--destroyed by Abimelech (Jdg. 9:1-49). It was…
Jeroboam built Shechem--destroyed by Abimelech (Jdg. 9:1-49). It was rebuilt, and perhaps fortified, by Jeroboam, as a royal residence.
built Penuel--a ruined city with a tower (Jdg 8:9), east of Jordan, on the north bank of the Jabbok. It was an object of importance to restore this fortress (as it lay on the caravan road from Gilead to Damascus and Palmyra) and to secure his frontier on that quarter.
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 JEROBOAM’S WORKS AND IDOLATRY, 1Ki_12:25-33.
JEROBOAM’S WORKS AND IDOLATRY, 1Ki_12:25-33.
25. Built Shechem — Enlarged and fortified it for a royal residence.
Read full note →
Dwelt therein — Not exclusively, for in 1Ki_14:17, we find him dwelling at Tirzah.
Went out from thence — That is, Shechem was the base of operations in the building and fortifying of other cities.
Penuel — The place east of the Jordan, near the fords of the Jabbok, where Jacob wrestled with the angel, (Gen_32:30) and whose tower and inhabitants, in the time of the judges, Gideon had destroyed. Jdg_8:17. Jeroboam probably regarded it as an important position, commanding the great caravan road to the farther East, and accordingly fortified it for the security of his kingdom.
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 25–33. Jeroboam sets up golden calves in Dan and…
25–33. Jeroboam sets up golden calves in Dan and Bethel, and thus makes Israel to Sin (Not in 2 Chron)
25. built Shechem] i.e. Strengthened it by walls and made it thus fit to be the royal residence, ‘the political centre of a confederation whose military leader bore the title of king.’ It had in early days been a strong town with gates, but was overthrown by Abimelech (see Jdg_9:4-5). For ‘mount Ephraim’ here, we should rather read as elsewhere, with R.V., ‘the hill country of Ephraim.’
Read full note →
Penuel] This place was in the country of Gilead, on the east of the Jordan. When Gideon (Jdg_8:8) in his pursuit after the Midianites crossed from the west side to the east of the Jordan, the first place mentioned in his route is Succoth, and after that Penuel. It was important for Jeroboam to have a stronghold on both sides of the river, as his subjects lived on both sides, and this town, Penuel, was no doubt a post of consequence, as it was evidently near to the fords of the Jordan, so that a force stationed there would protect the land from invaders.
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 (25) Jeroboam built Shechem.—Shechem had passed through many vicissitudes…
(25) Jeroboam built Shechem.—Shechem had passed through many vicissitudes of fortune. It was already a city when Abraham entered the Promised Land (Gen_12:6), and is from time to time mentioned in the patriarchal history (Gen_33:18, Gen_35:4, Gen_37:12-13). At the Conquest it became a city of refuge (Jos_20:7; Jos_21:20-21), and the scene of the solemn recital of the blessings and curses of the Law (Jos_8:33-35). From its proximity to Shiloh, and to the inheritance of Joshua, it assumed something of the character of a capital (Jos_24:1; Jos_24:32). Then it became the seat of the usurpation of Abimelech, which allied itself with the native inhabitants of the region; but rebelling afterwards against him, it was destroyed (Judges 9). We then hear nothing more of it till this chapter, when the tribes assemble at Shechem, under the shadow of the famous hills of Ebal and Gerizim, to meet Rehoboam. Jeroboam is said to have “built it” anew. This may be taken literally, as indicating that it had never recovered from its destruction by Abimelech, or it may simply mean that he fortified and enlarged it as his capital. Subsequently it gave way to Tirzan and Samaria; but its almost unrivalled position preserved it in importance among the Samaritans after the Captivity, even down to our Lord’s time, and under the name of Nablous (Neapolis) it has lasted to the present day, while many other cities once famous have passed away.
Penuel.—See Gen_32:30-31; Jdg_8:8; Jdg_8:17. It lay on or near the Jabbok, on the other side of Jordan, commanding the road from the east by Succoth to the fords of Jordan and Shechem. Jeroboam rebuilt it—perhaps out of the ruin in which it had been left by Gideon—as an outpost to his new capital, and a royal stronghold among the tribes on the east of Jordan.
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 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, AND THE…
CHAPTER 12:25-33.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, AND THE SCHISM IN THE CHURCH. The historian, after describing the great rebellion of the Jewish people, proceeds, in the rest of this chapter, to relate the measures which the new king took to secure his position. These were both external and internal. The external means were the erection of fortresses; the internal, the provision of new sanctuaries, priests, and ordinances.
Read full note →
Then Jeroboam built i.e. , rebuilt or fortified, hn; B; naturally has both meanings Shechem (see on ver. 1 and on 1Ki_14:1) in Mount Ephraim The Har-Ephraim, or mountain district of Ephraim (in Jos_11:16 called the "Mountain of Israel;" (cf. Jos_17:15-18; Jud_1:4:5 10:1; 1Sa_1:1) is "the central mass of the hills of Palestine, nearly equidistant from the northern and southern boundary of the whole country" (Stanley, S. and P., p. 229), and the richest and most beautiful part of the land. "The tower of Sichem had been burnt down by Abimelech and the tower of Penuel had been destroyed by Gideon, Jdg_8:17" (Keil). The city of Shechem had been destroyed at the same time as the tower, but had no doubt been rebuilt, at least in part, otherwise it could hardly have been selected for Rehoboam"s coronation. It was naturally Jeroboam"s first care to strengthen his position by fortitying his capital, and the more so as this city would be particularly obnoxious to Rehoboam as the scene of the revolution; but why he should at the same time have rebuilt Penuel Ewald thinks the seat of government was placed here is not at first eight so obvious, as it lay beyond the Jordan (Gen_32:22, 30 33:17) and was therefore presumably outside the circle of hostilities, should such arise. Probably it was because this was the gate to his Trans-Jordanic territory. A tower commanding the fords of the Jordan would secure Reuben, Gad, etc., against invasion from Judah. It is also not unlikely that Jeroboam. who was the great castle builder of that age, had some fears of "hostile attacks from the north and northeast" (Keil), or thought of "the caravan road which led over Gilead to Damascus" (Wordsworth), and of which he would wish, for the sake of his revenue, to retain the control, and dwelt therein He made it his first residence and capital; and went out from thence i.e., when he had secured one fortified city. He could hardly be certain as yet which side some of the tribes would take. It is also possible that some of the workmen who had built Shechem were afterwards employed on the fortification of Penuel, and built Penuel. Bahr says, "There is no doubt that he built these fortifications by tribute labour, like Solomon." But is this quite so certain? The people after the revolt would naturally conclude that Rehoboam, of whose proud temper they had had such proof, would want to wreak his vengeance on the city which had rejected him, and the instinct of self-defence would lead them at once to rebuild their walls. And the newborn kingdom would also earnestly desire to possess a suitable capital. Thus their self-interest and enthusiasm alike would obviate the necessity for a conscription.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD. Vers. 25-27.
Jeroboam"s Despondency.
lies the head that wears a crown." Jeroboam"s ambition was to be a king, and God gave him his desire. This was to punish Solomon and his house for their apostasy, and the men of Israel who had been led away in it.
The sequel proved that the ambition of Jeroboam also brought its punishment, for he soon found his throne the reverse of a comfortable seat.
I HIS FAITH IN HIS PEOPLE WAS SHAKEN.
1. They seem to have become resistive under his rule.
(1) This was likely to be the case. Their complaint against the house of David was the pressure of their burdens. But these could not be lightened when two kings had to be maintained instead of one; when a court had to be supported by a greatly diminished constituency.
(2) They had to create a capital worthy of the kingdom. So Jeroboam set about building Shechem, which was a ruin; for, two centuries before, it had been demolished by Abimelech. (Jud_1:9:45) The cost of this, including that of the palace there, appears to have been so disagreeable, that Jeroboam, for his tranquillity, shifted his court to Penuel, on the east of the Jordan.
(3) Penuel now stood in need of improvements. It had suffered at the hands of Gideon nearly three centuries before, when the tower was destroyed. (Jud_1:8:17) A second palace here was not likely to ease their burdens.
(4) Then their ability to pay taxes was reduced; for their commerce, created in the days of Solomon, seems to have declined. This would not improve their temper.
2. He therefore became gloomily apprehensive.
(1) He feared that, having now discovered that their burdens were no lighter, they might reflect that they had done wrong in throwing off allegiance to their legitimate sovereign, and that the "kingdom would return to the house of David.
(2) Further, that this disposition must be encouraged by their visits to Jerusalem for religious purposes. (Deu_16:16, Deu_16:17) They would then see that neither Shechem nor Penuel, as capitals, could compare with Jerusalem.
(3) And he feared that a counter revolution must imperil his life, for Rehoboam would demand this as a condition of their reconciliation. But the true cause of his despondency was that
II HE HAD FORGOTTEN TO TRUST IN GOD.
1. Had he no assurance in the words of Ahijah?
(1) Did not Ahijah give him ten pieces of the rent garment? Did he not accompany the sign with assuring words? (Chronicles 11:37.) Has not this part of the prophecy been fulfilled?
(2) Is it not, therefore, in the power of Jeroboam to perpetuate his throne by faithfully serving God? (1Ch_11:38) The fulfilment of the former part of the prophecy surely pledges the latter.
(3) Ah, but this promise is conditional! So are all God"s promises. If we comply not with the conditions we shall infallibly forfeit the kingdom of heaven.
2. But he was moved by ambition feather than piety.
(1) Had he complied with the holy conditions, instead of apprehending mischief to his throne from the visits of his subjects to Jerusalem, it would be the other way. For the more they learnt to love and serve God, the more loyal must they be to a godly king.
(2) But he felt in his soul that he had not so complied: nor had he any disposition to repent; therefore, instead of seeking help in God, as he should have done, he trusted to his own wicked policy. There is no real happiness without God. The very pinnacle of human ambition is a throne: yet without God is there no happiness here. "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain 1Ki_12:26. Now shall the kingdom return to the house…
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
1Ki_12:26. Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David—Recognizing the immediate peril of Israel’s visits to the temple, he sought to alienate their hearts from Jehovah’s worship.
Read full note →
1Ki_12:28. It is too much for you—A specious plea that it would save them the costs and toils of a long journey. Two calves of gold—Egyptian figures, Apis and Mnevis. These winged bulls, by their slight resemblance to the cherubim, might captivate their imagination and soothe their scruples.
1Ki_12:30. The people went to Dan—“Bethel was at the southern extremity of the kingdom, and within sight of Jerusalem; but the people preferred to turn from all associations with the city of Judah, and went to “Dan,” on the far northern fronter.
1Ki_12:30. Priests of the lowest of the people—Rather, of all classes. For the Levitea would not assist in his idolatry, and, moreover, Jeroboam wished to destroy all the sacred associations of Israel’s former life.
1Ki_12:32. Ordained a feast in the eighth month—Most probably to divert the memories of the tribes from the Feast of Tabernacles, which fell on the 15th day of the seventh month, in order further to eradicate sacred memories. He had a plausible pretext for this change, in that the harvest ripened later in the northern districts.
1Ki_12:33. He offered upon the altars—Thus assuming to himself the functions of the high priest. Two reasons may have led to this act of usurpation: he had observed that the Egyptian king united in his person both the royal and sacerdotal offices; and he may have distrusted the prudence of vesting in a subject, at so critical an hour in Israel’s career, the power which a high priest possessed over a people so controllable by religious impulses.—W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki_12:25-33
A MAN-MADE RELIGION
THE genius of Jeroboam was equal to every emergency. He was in his element when fomenting rebellion. He was equally at home as ruler of the newly-formed state, and adopted prompt and vigorous measures for the establishment of his kingdom. He soon saw that his authority would be weakened if provision was not made for the religious instincts of his people. And here we get a glimpse at the bold, reckless daring of the man’s nature. He quails not before the demand made upon him, but at once constructs a religion which was intended to serve his own crafty purposes, rather than to promote the piety of the people and the glory of God. In the system of worship thus established we have the leading characteristics of a man-made religion.
I. It is regarded as a necessary element in state-craft (1Ki_12:25; 1Ki_12:27). It may be that Jeroboam neither wished nor designed to introduce heathenish idolatry into his kingdom; the revolt by which he had reached the throne was brought about as the result of, and as a protest against, the abominations of such idolatry. He was apprehensive that if all his people went up to Jerusalem to worship, their hearts would be weaned from him and won over to the government of Rehoboam. He therefore instituted a new system of worship, not, perhaps, with the intention of countenancing idolatry, although in reality caring little about the result, but as a modification of the true worship of God demanded by the changed circumstances of the kingdom. His religious reform was dictated by a shrewd state-policy, not by the Word of God. There is a class of politicians who regard religion as an erratic and troublesome superstition, but a necessary part of state organization; and who maintain that the religion of a people is determined by the condition of their national life. Now this is inverting the order of things, as if a pyramid was intended to rest upon its apex rather than its base, or a tree to produce fruit by stretching its branches underground and its roots in the upper air. The fact is, religion is the mightiest force in a nation, and that which determines the conditions and development of national life. The government that trifles with the religion of a people cannot be permanent.
II. It is the suggestion of an unbelieving and wicked heart. The king took counsel (1Ki_12:28), not with God, but with his own wicked heart (1Ki_12:33), and with those whom he knew would support and carry out his views. Had Jeroboam believed in God, and been obedient to His commandments, his kingdom would have been established as David’s (chap. 1Ki_11:38). But when God is ignored, the unbeliever is left to his own devices; and there is no possible folly and wickedness to which he may not have recourse. The infamy that Jeroboam heaped upon his name is a terrible example to all who would set up a religion irrespective of the Divine word and sanction. What is religion without faith, and what scope is there for faith in a religion in which the originator himself has no faith? Vain, empty, sinful man is in too sore need of supernatural help and grace to find either comfort or elevation in a religion that springs only from himself!
III. It is essentially idolatrous (1Ki_12:28-30).
1. It is thus a violation of a specific Divine commandment (Exo_20:4). The breaking of one commandment leads the way to the breaking of others. It is like the letting out of waters: the wider the breach, the more impetuous and overwhelming the deluge. A single fault in the foundation imperils the whole structure. Whatever is based on wrong-doing is unstable and perishable.
2. Its tendency is thus to insult and supplant the One True God (1Ki_12:28). These calves were not set up to be worshipped as idols, any more than were the ark and cherubim, and other sacred shrines at Jerusalem, but were designed to be symbols of Jehovah. And yet the inevitable tendency was to lose sight of the invisible in the visible, as the subsequent history of Israel so painfully proved. What an enormity is it to liken the glory of the invisible God to an ox that eateth grass! Man creates his own idols, and falls down and worships them. Any creature, real or imaginary, which we invest with Divine properties is an idol; or, it may be the true God falsely conceived. Idolatry is a sin against which the most faithful warnings have been uttered in all ages, and on account of which the severest judgments have been inflicted; yet it is that to which humanity is most prone.
3. It is thus the occasion of great moral corruption. “And this thing became a sin” (1Ki_12:30). It was not without reason that the Israelitish king was branded in sacred history as “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” That sin consisted in a one-sided construction and use of the facts of sacred history, and an arrogant assumption to improve the religious worship of the nation by most dangerous methods that had no proper sanction from Jehovah or His prophets. He may be regarded as a type of the Roman hierarchy, which, in its efforts to bind the people to St. Peter’s chair, has verily set up graven images in connection with its worship, and, assuming to represent the sanctities of a holy antiquity, has, in fact, reproduced the forms of heathen idolatry. Idolatry is the fruitful source of many other sins.
IV. It is not scrupulous as to the agents it employs (1Ki_12:31). Not that the king selected priests from persons of low birth or infamous character. This would have brought his system of worship into contempt. The priesthood had hitherto been hereditary and confined to the tribe of Levi. But it is probable that the Levites opposed the unauthorised innovations, and refused to give their sanction to the new religion; indeed, they left their possessions and came to Jerusalem, where they found a more congenial sphere for their sacred functions (2Ch_11:13-17). But, not to be foiled in his purpose, Jeroboam created a new priestly order, taken indiscriminately from the entire population, irrespective of rank or tribes. The wily schemer never lacks instruments to work out his designs.
V. It has all the outward seeming of a genuine institution (1Ki_12:32-33). There was the Temple, the feast of dedication, the altar, the sacrifice, the priests. Nothing is more delusive than religious form and ceremony. There may be the most elaborate ritual, while the spirit of religion is extinct. The most gorgeous tapestry may hide a wall honey-combed with decay.
LESSONS:—
1. A Man-Made Religion is deficient in fundamental truth.
2. In spiritual life.
3. In authority.
4. In practical morality.
5. In saving efficacy.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1Ki_12:25-33. The demoralizing influence of idolatry on national life.
1. It leads to a national enfeeblement, against which the strongest fortresses afford no protection (1Ki_12:25).
2. It distorts the idea of God (1Ki_12:28).
3. It loosens the bonds of morality (1Ki_12:30).
4. It leaves the people an easy prey in the hands of a selfish and unscrupulous ruler.
5. It caricatures the solemnities of worship (1Ki_12:31-33).
6. It issues in national extinction.
1Ki_12:25. Shechem had been ruined and sowed with salt (Jdg_9:45), it had been rebuilt (1Ki_12:1), but now made a royal city, as being in meditullio regni, in the middle of the kingdom: as Constantinople, for its situation, is said to be a city fatally founded, to command a great part of the world.—Trapp.
—As soon as Jeroboam obtained the wish of his heart, namely, the rulership, he asked no longer about the condition under which it was promised to him, and with which it was bound up (chap. 1Ki_11:38). How often we forget, when God has granted to us the desire of our hearts, to walk in His ways. He who obtains rulership by the path of rebellion, must always be in fear and anxiety lest he lose it again in the same way, for the populace which to-day cries, Hosanna! will on the morrow shout, Crucify! crucify! An evil conscience makes the most stout hearted and the strongest timid and anxious, so that he sees dangers where there are none, and then, to insure his own safety, devises wrong and evil instruments. One false step always requires another.—Lange.
—Humanly speaking, Jeroboam’s fear was, it must be confessed, well-founded. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that he gave way to the temptation of helping forward the plans of Providence by the crooked devices of a merely human policy. His measures for counteracting the tendency to reunion with Judah were cleverly devised, and proved him “wise in his generation.” The later history shows that they were effectual. Like all measures which involve a dereliction of principle, they brought certain evils in their train; and they drew down a Divine judgment on himself which he had not faith enough to anticipate. But they fully secured the object at which he aimed. They prevented all healing of the breach between the two kingdoms. They made the separation final. They produced the result that not only no reunion took place, but no symptoms of an inclination to re-unite ever manifested themselves during the whole period of the double kingdom.—Speaker’s Comm.
1Ki_12:28-33. The sin of Jeroboam wherewith he caused Israel to sin. I. He erected images of God against the supreme commandment of God (Exo_20:4). II. He set aside the prescribed order of the servants of God, and made his own priests. III. He altered the feast, which was a reminder of the great deeds of God, and made it a mere nature-and-harvest feast. That is the greatest tyranny when the ruler of a land makes himself the master also of the faith and conscience of his subjects.
—In the estimation of the people of the world this policy of Jeroboam is held to be proper, because they consider that religion is to be established, held, and altered as may be useful and good for the land and the people and the common interest, and that the regimen is not for the sake of the religion, but the religion for the regimen. Consequently Jeroboam acted well and wisely in the matter. But God says, on the other hand, all that I command you, that shall ye observe, ye shall not add thereto (Deu_12:32). For godliness is not to be regulated by the common weal, but the common weal is to be regulated by godliness. Every government which employs religious instrumentalities, and interferes with the faith of the people, not for the sake of God and the salvation of souls, but for the attainment of political ends, shares the guilt of the sin of Jeroboam, and involves itself in heavy responsibilities.—Cramer.
1Ki_12:28. “Whereupon the king took counsel.” Compared with 1Ki_12:26—“And Jeroboam said in his heart.” The mental toils of the cunning.
1. A wicked, crooked policy involves far more anxiety and labour than a straightforward policy.
2. The sinful plotter is in a perpetual fever of fear—he is in antagonism with both God and man.
3. Many of the schemes of the cunning are too diabolical to be divulged; they must be hidden within one solitary breast. What a horrible picture is presented by such a mind to the eye of the Omniscient!
4. A temporary success intensifies the mental pressure.
5. The most complicated contrivances of the cunning end in humiliating defeat.
—He invented a political religion, instituted feasts in his own times different from those appointed by the Lord, gave the people certain objects of devotion, and pretended to think it would be more inconvenient and oppressive to them to have to go up to Jerusalem to worship. This was not the last time that religion was made a state engine to serve political purposes. It is strange that in pointing out his calves to the people he should use the same words that Aaron used when he made the golden calf in the wilderness, when they must have heard what terrible judgments fell upon their fore fathers for this idolatry.
—Oh, the mischief that comes of wicked infidelity! It was God’s prophet that had rent Jeroboam’s garment into twelve pieces, and had given ten of them to him, in token of his sharing the ten tribes; who, in the same breath, also told him that the cause of this distraction was their idolatry. Yet now will he institute an idolatrous service for the holding together of them whom their idolatry had rent from their true sovereign to him. He says not, God hath promised me this kingdom; God hath conferred it; God shall find means to maintain his own act; I will obey Him, let Him dispose of me. The God of Israel is wise and powerful enough to fetch about his own designs; but, as if the devices of men were stronger than God’s providence and ordination, he will be working out his own ends by profane policies. Jeroboam, being born an Israelite, and bred in the court of a Solomon, could not but know the express charge of God against the making of images, against the erection of any rival altars to that of Jerusalem; yet now that he sees both these may avail much to the advancing of his ambitious project, he sets up those images, those altars. Wicked men care not to make bold with God in cases of their own commodity. If the laws of their Maker lie in the way of their profit or promotion, they either spurn them out or tread upon them at pleasure. Aspiring minds will know no God but honour. Israel sojourned in Egypt, and brought home a golden calf; Jeroboam sojourns there, and brought home two. It is hard to dwell in Egypt untainted. Not to savour of the sins of the place we live in is no less strange than for wholesome liquor tunned up in a musty vessel not to smell of the cask. The best body may be infected in a contagious air. Let him beware of Egypt that would be free from idolatry.—Bp. Hall.
—To the perverted man, what he shall do for his God is forthwith too much. In matters of faith and of the homage due to God, we should not consider what is convenient and agreeable to the great mass, but should enquireire only for what God prescribes in His Word. He who conciliates the sensuonsness and the untutored ways of the masses, and flatters their unbelief or their superstition, belongs to the false prophets who make broad the way of life. Doctrines and institutions which depart from the revealed Word of God are often praised as progress and seasonable reforms, while in truth they are steps backward and corrupting innovations. In Christendom we pray no longer to wood and stone, and to golden calves, and think ourselves thereby raised far above a darkened heathenism, but, nevertheless, we often place the creature above the Creator, and abandon ourselves to it with all our love, and consideration, and service. Behold the things and persons thou lovest with thy whole heart and strength, these are thy gods. What use of typical representations in the worship of God is permitted, and what is forbidden?—Calwer.
1Ki_12:30. Idolatry a sin.
1. It is a violation of the Divine commandment (Exo_20:4).
2. It ignores the claims of the Most High.
3. It is degrading to the votary.
4. It is pernicious in its example to others.
5. They who think to secure their safety by sin only hasten the ruin they would avoid.
—As a great tree in a forest, when it falls drags down many others with it, so also are many others carried along by the bad example of those who rule when they fall away from their religion, or sin otherwise grossly against God.—Starke.
—Every accessory to sin is filthy, but the first authors of sin are abominable. How is Jeroboam branded in every of these sacred leaves. How do all ages ring of his fact with the accent of dishonour and indignation. “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, that made Israel to sin.” It was a shame for Israel that it could be made to sin by a Jeroboam; but O, cursed name of Jeroboam, that would draw Israel to sin! The followers and abettors of evil are worthy of torment, but no hell is too deep for the leaders of public wickedness.—Bp. Hall.
1Ki_12:31. We have in the new covenant no Levitical priesthood, indeed, but a pastoral and preaching office which the Lord has instituted, so that thereby the body of Christ may be edified (Eph_4:11). He who despises this office, and thinks that any one without distinction and without a lawful calling may exercise it, is a partaker in the sin of Jeroboam. “No one,” says the Augsburg Confession, “shall teach or preach publicly in the church, or administer the sacrament, without due calling.”
—It is not the metal that makes their gods, but the worship—the sacrifices. What sacrifices could there be without priests? No religion could ever want sucred masters of Divine ceremonies. God’s clergy was select and honourable, branches of the holy stem of Aaron. Jeroboam rakes up his priests out of the channel of the multitude: all tribes, all persons, were good enough to his spurious devotion. Leaden priests are well fitted for golden deities. Religion receives either much honour or blemish by the quality of those who serve at her altars. We are not worthy to profess ourselves servants of the true God if we do not hold his service worthy of the best.—Bp. Hall.
1Ki_12:32-33. The empty pretences of Ritualism.
1. Ritualism is not absolutely essential to spiritual religion.
2. Its highest function is only as a means, and that chiefly to the most rude and ignorant.
3. It may be altered according to the whim or wish of an irreligious sovereign.
4. It is most claborate and showy where the worship is most idolatrous.
5. It is disappointing to the sincere and spiritual worshipper.
6. All pretences to religious zeal, contrary to God’s revealed will, are but the devices of Satan, more fatally to delude men’s souls.
—We must not conceal from ourselves that there are many persons who, at the bottom of their hearts, will think that Jeroboam acted wisely in the course he took, and cannot see how he could have got over the difficulty in his path but by some such course as that which he adopted. How could he otherwise have managed? The answer is, he need not have managed at all. He had been appointed king under the Divine sanction. He held his crown under the condition of obedience, and on that condition the continuance of the crown to his house was pledged to him. Nothing was wanted on his part but unreserved faith in that promise. If Jeroboam had possessed that faith he would have been free from any anxiety on the subject, he would have felt that it was safer to incur an apparent danger in pursuing the career of duty and right doing, than to seek exemption from it by unlawful doing and tortuous policy. The Lord had given him every reason to trust in the sufficiency of His protection when He had compelled king Rehoboam to dismiss the forces with which he was prepared to fall upon him in his comparatively helpless condition. If it be asked how he was to be secured from the danger which stood so distinctly before him, we can only answer, “We do not know.” Nor had Jeroboam any need to know. God knew; and it was his clear course to do right, trusting all the rest to God.—Kitto.
1Ki_12:32. The Feast of Tabernacles, to be observed in the seventh month (Lev_23:34), Jeroboam transferred to the eighth month. A plausible occasion for this arbitrary deviation from the law which repeatedly names the seventh month as the time appointed of the Lord (Lev_23:34; Lev_23:39; Lev_23:41), might be found in the circumstance that in the northern districts of his kingdom the grain ripened at least a month later than in the southern Judah, as this festival was to be kept at the ingathering of the fruit of the land (the grain); the proper ground, however, lay in the design to make the separation also in a religious aspect as complete as possible, although he adhered to the day of the month on account of the weak, who might take offence at the innovations. For that there were many besides the priests and Levites who were highly dissatisfied with these illegal proceedings appears from the notice (2Ch_13:16) that Israelites out of all the tribes devoted in heart to the Lord went to Jerusalem to sacrifice there to the God of their fathers. Still, not content with all this, with erecting sanctuaries and places of worship, instituting priests and changing feasts, Jeroboam himself offered sacrifice at the altar at Bethel, in order to prove himself to be the spiritual head of his kingdom.—Keil.
—The festivals which an entire people celebrate in remembrance of the great deeds of God for them are the support of their faith and of their life of fellowship. It is to destroy this life when, from prejudice and for the sake of outward worldly considerations, arbitrarily they are altered or abandoned.
1Ki_12:33. As it is good and praiseworthy when kings and princes engage in the service of God along with their subjects, and set them a good example, so also is it blameworthy when they do it only to win the people over to themselves, and to secure their authority over them.—Lange.
—“Which he had devised of his own heart.” The entire system of Jeroboam receives its condemnation in these words. His main fault was, that he left a ritual and a worship where all was divinely authorized, for ceremonies and services which were wholly of his own devising. Not being a prophet, he had no authority to introduce religious innovations. Not having received any commission to establish new forms, he had no right to expect that any religious benefit would accrue from them. He was placed in difficult circumstances, but he met them with the arts of a politician, not with the single-mindedness of a saint. His arrangements had a certain cleverness, but they were not really wise measures; instead of securing and strengthening, they tended to corrupt, and so to weaken the nation.—Speaker’s Comm.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain 1 Kings
1 Kings
POLITICAL RELIGION
Read full note →
1Ki 12:25 - 1Ki 12:33.
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 {1Ki 11:38}. 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.’
II. Another lesson taught here is the sin of degrading religion to be a mere instrument for securing personal ends. Jeroboam has had many followers among politicians, The average ‘statesman’ looks on all religions as equally true or untrue, and is ready to be polite to any of them, if he can carry his measures thereby. The long history of the relations of Church and State in the Old World has been little else than the State’s hiring and muzzling the Church for its own advantage, and the protests of a faithful few against the degradation of State patronage and consequent control.
In England, Jeroboam and his calves used to be the favourite shocking example of the sin of schism, with which High Church orators were fond of pelting Nonconformists. The true lesson from him and them is precisely the opposite one; namely, the weakening of religion, when it is favoured and endowed by the civil power. The priests of Bethel, who were the creatures of Jeroboam, were not likely to be his or his successors rebukers. When Amos the prophet spoke bold words against a king, it was Amaziah the priest who gave the shameful counsel, ‘O thou seer, flee into the land of Judah, and prophesy there; but prophesy no more at Bethel: for it is the king’s sanctuary.’ Is there no such thing known as a flaming profession of religion, because it is respectable, or opens the way to some good position? Does nobody pose in public, especially about election times, as a liberal supporter of Churches and a devout Church-member, with an eye mainly to votes? Do political parties think it a good thing to get the religious people to go for their ticket? Or, to take less base instances, is there not a whole school who estimate Christianity mainly as valuable as a social force, and, without any deep personal recognition of its loftier aspects, think it well that it should be generally accepted, especially by other people, as it makes them easier to govern, and cements the social fabric?
Christianity is something more than social cement. Jeroboam’s policy was a great success, as policy. It both united his kingdom and definitively separated it from Judah. But it was a success purchased at the price of degrading religion into the lackey of a court. Samson went to sleep on Delilah’s lap, and she cut off the clustering locks in which his strength lay.
III. The true nature of idolatry is brought out in the incident. Jeroboam did not draw Israel away to worship other gods. No charge of that sort is ever made against the calf worship. The images were meant, just as Aaron’s, of which they were a reproduction, was meant, to be symbols of Jehovah. The true object of worship was worshipped in a false way. No matter though the image represented Him, its worship was idol worship. There is no ground in the narrative for the surmise of Stanley,-who in this, as usual, simply says ditto to Ewald,-that Jeroboam’s motive was the desire to prevent Israel’s adopting false gods, and that the calves were a compromise by which he hoped to stem the tide of apostasy to Baal worship. The single motive stated in the text is policy inspired by fear. Jeroboam did not care enough about the worship of Jehovah to mould his statecraft with the view of conserving it. If he had so cared, he could not have set up the calves. His doing so is uniformly regarded in Scripture as idolatry pure and simple; and though it is clearly distinguished from the worship of false gods, it is none the less branded as rebellion against Jehovah.
A visible representation of Jehovah was as much an idol as a similar one of Baal would have been. It necessarily degraded the conception of Him. It brought sense into dangerous prominence as an aid to worship. The symbol might at first, and to the more devout, be a mere symbol, and transparent; but it would soon become opaque, and from symbol turn embodiment, and thence pass to being the very deity represented. It is a feat of abstraction impossible for the ordinary man, to worship before an idol, and not to worship the idol. The strange, awful fascination which idolatry exercised is perhaps gone now from the civilised world. But the lesson remains ever in season, that it is dangerous work to bring in sense as an ally of devotion, because outward things, which at first may be only symbols and helps, are almost certain to become something more.
IV. Jeroboam may stand, finally, as a type of the men who suppose themselves to be worshipping God when they are only following their own wills. All his ceremonial had this damning characteristic, that it was ‘devised of his own heart’; and so it was himself that was enshrined in his new house of the high places, and himself to whom the sacrifices were offered. Absolute obedience to God’s will, whatever perils may seem to attend it, is true worship. Wherever apparent devotion to Him is mingled with burning incense to our own net, the mixture ruins the devotion. ‘Obedience is better than sacrifice.’ Temptations to take our own way will often appear as the dictates of sound policy, and to neglect them as culpable carelessness. But such paltering with plain commandments is as ruinous as sinful, and is not to be atoned for by outward worship.
What did Jeroboam win by his intrusion of self-will into the region which ought to be sacred to perfect obedience? A troubled reign and the destruction of his house after one generation. One more thing he won; namely, that terrible epithet, which becomes almost a part of his name, ‘Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.’ What a title to be branded on a man’s forehead for ever! It is always a mistake to disobey God. Every sin is a blunder as well as a crime. This only is the safe motto for churches and individuals, in all the details of worship and of life: ‘Lo, I come to do Thy will, O Lord, and Thy law is within my heart.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 thought in his heart
thought in his heart
"Heart" here is a metonym for a person's inner consciousness, thoughts, motivation, or feelings. AT: "thought to himself" (See: Metonymy)
Read full note →
the house of David
Here "house" is a metonym representing family or descendants. AT: "the kings descended from David" (See: Metonymy)
If these people go up
The words "these people" refer to the people of the northern ten tribes of Israel.
the heart of these people
"Heart" here is a metonym for the people's allegiance and affection. AT: "the allegiance of these people" (See: Metonymy)
turn again to their master, to Rehoboam king of Judah ... return to Rehoboam king of Judah
These phrases mean basically the same thing and are combined to emphasize Jeroboam's fear that the people would turn again to Rehoboam as king. (See: Parallelism)
translationWords
Jeroboam
Shechem
Ephraim
life
heart
David
sacrifice
temple
lord
king
kingdom of Judah
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 12:25-33 Jeroboam’s actions in establishing his kingdom are reported…
12:25-33 Jeroboam’s actions in establishing his kingdom are reported in two sections, one on his building activities (12:25), the other on his false shrines and religious practices (12:26-33).
12:25 Both Shechem (12:1) and Peniel, which Jeroboam built across the Jordan River, were strategic defensive sites against the Arameans.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.