The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 272

HOMILETICS. Ver. 30.-The Sin of Jerobo111111,. What was this ein, of which, from this time f?rwai:d, the_ historian has so_ much to say? It is mentioned_ more than twenty times m Scnpture. It casts its dark shadow across fifteen reigns of the kings of Israel. Its baleful influences were felt for more than two and a half centuries. It was the prime cause (2 Kings xvii. 21-23) of that captivity from which the ten tribes have never returned. Surely we ought to know what it was. And as one help to a right conclusion, let us first clearly understand what it was not. I. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF REBELLION. There may have been sin in the way in which the rupture with Judah was brought about (see 2 Chron. xiii. 6, 7), though that is byno means certain (notes on vars.19, 20). But even if Israel was set upon rebellion, and even if Jeroboam had rudely and wickedly precipitated the revolt, that cannot be "the sin" of which he is here and elsewhere accused. For, in the :first place, later kinge could not be held responsible for J eroboam's conduot at the time of the disruption, i.e., they could not commit that sin of Jeroboam ; and, secondly, the disruption itself was ordained of God (eh. xi. 81 sqq.; xii. 16; 2 Cbron. xi. 4). Verse 15, too, is decisive. "The cause was from the Lord." Those who sate on J eroboam's throne, consequently, no less tha.n the successors of Solomon, reigned tie jure Divino. The former equally with the latter were the anointed of Hea,en (2 Kings ix. 3, 6). It was the Lord "raised up" (eh. xiv. 14) Baa.aha (eh. xv. 28, 29), Zimri (eh. xvi. 12), Jehu (2 Kings ix. 6), and the rest. II. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF GOING AFTER OTHER GODS. If this were the sin referred to here it would probably have been called " the sin of Solomon,'' for Solomon is twice charged with that sin (eh. xi. 4, 10), whereas Jeroboam never went after Baal, or ABhtoreth, or ll!ilcom. It is true the calves are once called " other gods'' (eh. xiv. 9), but they are only so called in derision, and in eh. xvi 81 the sin of Jeroboam is expressly distinguished from the worship of other gods. It was probably J eroboam's boast (see note on ver. 28), not that he was instituting a new religion, or setting up a rival Deity, but that he was worshipping the one true God in a more rational and primitive way. See Jos., Ant. viii. 8. 4. And t.hat the calf- worship was not idolatry, properly so called, is clear from this consideration, that "the sin of Jeroboam" is confined to the kingdom of Israel. Not one of the kings of Judah is ever taxed with it. And yet it was in Judah, and not in Israel, that idolatry prevailed. Of the kings of Israel, only Ahab and his two sons were guilty of idolatry; whereas of the kings of Judah only :five set their faces ago.inst it. Yet the non-idolatrous kings of Israel are constantly charged with Jeroboam's sin, and the idolatrous kings of Judah never. Polytheism, therefore, it cannot have been. III. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF IMAGE WORSHIP. The calves were not made to be worshipped, any more than the cherubim of Solomon's temple. Nor do we read that they received Divine worship. "The people went to worship before the one," &c. The Scripture, it is true, calls them "molten imagee," but Jeroboam doubtless said they were symbols of the heavenly powers, designed (like the images of the Roman Communion) to be helps to devotion, and they are nowhero called "idols," CB. XII. 25-38.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 275