should not go after other gods : but he 20), and (2) the disruption should be but kept not that which the Lord commanded. partial. There should be a "remnant" Ver. 11.-Wherefore the Lord said unto Rom.ix. 27; xi. 5,&c.] for David thy father's Solomon [probably by a prophet, Ahijah or sake (i.e., because both of David's piety lddo. There would hardly be a third ap- n.nd God's promise to him (2 Sam. vii. 13)] : pearance], Forasmuch as this 1s done of but I w1ll rend 1t out of the hand of thy thee [Heb. this was with thee], and thou BOIL hast not kept my covenant and my sta- Ver. 13.-Howbeit I w1ll not rend away tutes, which I have commanded thee, I w1ll all the kingdom ; but w1ll give one tribe surely rend [i.e., dedpite thy great power [viz., J11dah (eh. xii. 20, "the tribe of Judah e.nd magnificence, thy fortifications and only"). "Even the reservation of one tribe munitions of war] the kingdom from thee, is called a gift " (Wordsworth) to thy son for and w1ll give 1t to thy servant. [Not David my servant's sake, and for Jerusa- merely subject, but officer, employ€. Thie lem's sake which I have chosen. [But for made the decree the more bitter. A " ser- this provision, Jerusalem wonldhave ceased vant" should be heir to hie glory. For a to be the religions capital. When the sceptre hireling Solomon's vast treasures had been departed from Judah, we may be sure that prepared. Thie verse should be read in the the "envy of Ephraim" would have de- light of Eccles. ii. 18. J manded that the city of their solemnities Ver. 12.-Notw1thstand1ng 1n thy day1 should be placed elsewhere -at Shiloh, I w1ll not do it [The threatening had two which for 400 years had been God's "bright gracious and merciful limitations, (1) The sanctuary," or at Bethel, which from far blow should not fall until after his death earlier times had been a holy place. See (of. ver. 34; eh. Jui. 29; 2 Kings :ui.i. on eh. xii. 29, 32.]
HOMILETICS. Vers. 4-8.-.7'7ie Sin of Solomon. Three questions will suffice to bring this subject before us. First, what was this sin jl secondly, by whom was it committed? thirdly, when, and under what circumstances jl But first, it is well we should understand what this sin was not. (1) It was not actual idolatry. True, Solomon built the altars, but he built them for his wives (vers. 7, 8). The wisest of men never stooped so low as to" project hia person" to dumb idols (note on ver. 4). To him, an idol was" nothing in the world" (1 Cor. viii. 4). That, of all things, was" vanity of vanities;" (2) Nor waa it the outcome of simple aensuality. The wives who " turned away hia heart," and to whom he "clave in love "-it was not passion but pride had collected them in such numbers under his palace roof. "His crowded seraglio was but one instance more of the sort of ambition which made him seek to surpass all men in his gardening, hia agricul- ture, hia treasures of gold," &c. (Keble). See on ver. 1. But when he had them, he must humour them, even in their idolatries. He was very far, we mn,y be sure, from thinking that all religions were alike, which has been "the disease of some great wits; " but he flattered himself that he was tolerant and liberal, and as he claimed liberty of conscience, so he must concede it to others. We see, then, that the essence of this sin was that having permitted himself, or purposes of state and pride and ostentation, the love of many strange women, he permitted them, and possibly some of his subjects also, to worship their false gods. And by so doing- 1. He gave a direct sanction to 8'11,perstition. He may have argued, like some in later times and some who bear the Christian name, that these things, though nothing in themselves, were all very well for women, that the ignorant must have material objects of worship, &c. But it was not thus that the God of bis fathers viewed the deed. This philosophic tolerance of other creeds, He called the teaching of falsehood. This liberality, in His sight, was "damnable un- charitableness "-the expression is Jeremy Taylor's-for it was leading )?OOr souls away from the light and changing the truth of God into a lie (Rom. i. 26). It wns u " making the blind to wander out of the way (Deut. xxvii. 18) in the worst possibltt sense of the words. 224 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [CH, XI. 1-18,