to play fa.et 11,nd loose with the comma,ndmente of Heaven ; what wonder if they made ema,ll 11,ccount of their obligations to their earthly king'/ 8. He tau,qht Baasha, Zimvri, amd 01TVTi to lift up their hamds against the king. Just as David's religious venera,tion for the person of the " Lord's anointed " tended to make hie throne 11,nd tba,t of hie successors the more secure, so did Jeroboam's rebellion (eh. xi. 26) afford e.n exe.mple of 11,ggression to later ages. His subjects were not likely to believe in the " divinity that doth hedge a king." Why should they scruple to grasp at the crown if it came within their reach'/ Why was Nadab more sacred than Rehoboam? Why should the son of Baasha, again, have more respect than the son of Solomon ? 4. He taught his subjects, indirectly, to hold life cheap. There had been two changes of dynasty before Baasha had learned from him to attack the king and to exterminate hie family, but both of these had been, so far as the royal family was concerned, bloodless. David never thought of slaying the children of Saul. His inquiry was, " Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kind- ness of God unto him?" (2 Sam. ix. 3.) And when " Israel rebelled against the house of David," they never contemplated a massacre of Solomon's harem, or even of insolent Rehoboam. But observe the change in succeeding revolutions. "He left not to Jeroboam any that breathed" (eh. xv. 29; cf. xvi. 11; 2 Kings x. 11). Why this thirst of blood'/ It is because Jeroboam has returned from Egypt, and his godless proceedings have depraved public morality, and the restraints of law have been enfeebled, and men have grown more reckless and desperate (eh. xvi. 18, 24). It is clear to the most cursory reader that a daring impiety charac· terizes the whole period from Jeroboa.m. to Hoshea,, and for this "the sin of Jero- boam" is mainly responsible. That was the " fust step " which makes the rest of the road easy. 6. He entailed his ai,n, upon his successors. Of each of the kings of Israel do we read that he" wa.I.ked in the way of Jeroboam, 11,nd in his sin which he did," e.nd we wonder, perhaps, how it was that not one of these nineteen kings, sprung as many of them were from different linea,gee, had the courage e.nd the piety to retra,ce his steps, e.nd revert t_o the primitive faith and mode of worship. But a little reflec- tion will show that this, under the circumste.nces, was well-nigh an impossibility. For J eroboa,m had made the calf-worship an integral part of the national llie. It was so intertwined with the existence of Israel as a separate people, tha,t to abandon it would be to repudiate all the traditions of the kingdom, e.nd tacitly to acknow- ledge the superiority of Judah. Any king attempting such a reformation would appear to be a traitor to hie country. The attempt would have provoked a eeaond schism. No, it was clear to each monarch at his accession, if he reflected on the subject at all, that the calf-worship must go on. The damnoaa hereditas which he had received he must transmit. There was no place for repente.nce. 6. He paved the way for idolatry. Already, in eh. xiv. 15, we find the "groves" following directly upon the calves, the images of Asherah upon the imnges of Jehovah. Ahab and Jezebel are not wholly responsible for the aboflli.nations of Baal and Ashtaroth. It was the daring innovations of J eroboa.m. had prepared the minds of men for this last and greatest violation of the law. "Man does not beoome base all at once." The plunge into wholesale idolatry would have been im- possible, had not the deep descent to the calf-worship been traversed first. Pecati poena peccatwm. That, too, begets children in its own likeness. Those who despised the "tabernacle of witness" in the wilderness wero given up to take up "the t~bernacle of Mol~oh an~ the star of the god Remphan" (Aots vii. 42, 43) .. If men will not have God m their thoughts, He gives them over to a reprobate mmd (Rom. i. 28). 7. We see his hand in tho building of Jericho. It was Hiel, a Bethelite, braved the ourse and rebuilt the walls and reared the gates of the city of palm trees. Here we see the influence of a prior violation of law. Whether he aoted in igno- yn,nce of law, or defiance of law, it is to Jeroboa.m.'s sin the deed owed its perpetra- tion. The law might well be forgotten which had been so completely ignored. And the subject had been encouraged to viola,te it by his sovereign. 866 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [os. xv. 25-xvi. 28,
8. We hea,r his voice in the curses of the children of Bethel. Where but at Bethel would children have de.red tbus to revile a prophet of the Lord ? The children only reflected the impiety and hatred of their po.rents. And from whom had these latter learned their hatred but from the king, who "made o.n house of high pliwes" there, and inaugurated the schismatic worship with his own ho.nds? From the day when a man of God laid the city under an interdict, the prophets of Jehovah must have been unpopular at Bethel, and as the time passed by, and the brea.ch was widened, passive dislike ripened into open scorn and hatred, and a new prophet, of whose powers they had had no experience, could not pass by withod insult and defiance. The Jews have a saying, that in all the soourgings, plagues, and chastisements which they have endured, there is not one but has in it an ounce of the dust of the golden calf which Aaron made. The sayiug holds equally good of the calves which Jeroboam made. There is not one of the troubles which befell both the crown and the kingdom, not one of the bitter sufferings which the ten tribes endured, but had its starting-point in the sin of Jeroboam.