1 kings 12 commentary

1 KI GS 12 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Israel Rebels Against Rehoboam
1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had
gone there to make him king.
BAR ES, "The first step taken by the new king was a most judicious one. If anything
could have removed the disaffection of the Ephraimites, and caused them to submit to
the ascendancy of Judah, it would have been the honor done to their capital by its
selection as the scene of the coronation. Shechem (now Nablous) lay on the flank of
Mount Gerizim, directly opposite to Mount Ebal, in a position second to none in all
Palestine. Though Abimelech had destroyed the place Jdg_9:45, it had probably soon
risen again, and was once more a chief city, or perhaps “the” chief city, of Ephraim. Its
central position made it a convenient place for the general assembly of the tribes, as it
had been in the days of Joshua Jos_8:30-35; 24:1-28; and this would furnish an
additional reason for its selection.
CLARKE, "Rehoboam went to Shechem - Rehoboam was probably the only son
of Solomon; for although he had a thousand wives, he had not the blessing of a
numerous offspring; and although he was the wisest of men himself, his son was a poor,
unprincipled fool. Had Solomon kept himself within reasonable bounds in matrimonial
affairs, he would probably have had more children; and such as would have had
common sense enough to discern the delicacy of their situation, and rule according to
reason and religion.
GILL, "And Rehoboam went to Shechem,.... After the death and internment of his
father:
for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king: as was pretended,
though in reality it was to seek occasion against him, and make Jeroboam king; it is very
probable they knew of the prophecy of Ahijah, and therefore would not go to Jerusalem,
but to Shechem, a city in the tribe of Ephraim, of which Jeroboam was, and where he
had sowed the seeds of sedition when ruler there; and this place they chose, partly
because they could more freely speak what they had in their minds, and partly for the

safety of Jeroboam they had sent for on this occasion; so that Rehoboam went thither
not of choice, but of necessity. The Jews (c) observe that this place was very ominous;
here Dinah was ravished, Joseph was sold, Abimelech exercised tyranny, and here now
the kingdom was divided.
JAMISO , "1Ki_12:1-5. Refusing the old men’s counsel.
Rehoboam went to Shechem — He was the oldest, and perhaps the only son of
Solomon, and had been, doubtless, designated by his father heir to the throne, as
Solomon had been by David. The incident here related took place after the funeral
obsequies of the late king and the period for public mourning had past. When all Israel
came to make him king, it was not to exercise their old right of election (1Sa_10:19-21),
for, after God’s promise of the perpetual sovereignty to David’s posterity, their duty was
submission to the authority of the rightful heir; but their object was, when making him
king, to renew the conditions and stipulations to which their constitutional kings were
subject (1Sa_10:25). To the omission of such rehearsing which, under the peculiar
circumstances in which Solomon was made king, they were disposed to ascribe the
absolutism of his government.
Shechem — This ancient, venerable, and central town was the place of convocation;
and it is evident, if not from the appointment of that place, at least from the tenor of
their language, and the concerted presence of Jeroboam [1Ki_12:3], that the people were
determined on revolt.
K&D, "The jealousy which had prevailed from time immemorial between Ephraim
and Judah, the two most powerful tribes of the covenant nation, and had broken out on
different occasions into open hostilities (Jdg_8:1.; 2Sa_2:9; 2Sa_19:42.), issued, on the
death of Solomon, in the division of the kingdom; ten tribes, headed by Ephraim,
refusing to do homage to Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon, and choosing
Jeroboam the Ephraimite as their king. Now, although the secession of the ten tribes
from the royal house of David had been ordained by God as a punishment for Solomon's
idolatry, and not only had Solomon been threatened with this punishment, but the
sovereignty over ten tribes had been promised to Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah,
whilst the secession itself was occasioned by Rehoboam's imprudence; yet it was
essentially a rebellion against the Lord and His anointed, a conspiracy on the part of
these tribes against Judah and its king Rehoboam. For apart from the fact that the tribes
had no right to choose at their pleasure a different king from the one who was the lawful
heir to the throne of David, the very circumstance that the tribes who were discontented
with Solomon's government did not come to Jerusalem to do homage to Rehoboam, but
chose Sichem as the place of meeting, and had also sent for Jeroboam out of Egypt,
showed clearly enough that it was their intention to sever themselves from the royal
house of David; so that the harsh reply given by Rehoboam to their petition that the
service imposed upon them might be lightened, furnished them with the desired
opportunity for carrying out the secession upon which they had already resolved, and for
which Jeroboam was the suitable man. And we have already shown at 1Ki_11:40 that the
promise of the throne, which Jeroboam had already received from God, neither
warranted him in rebelling against Solomon, nor in wresting to himself the government
over the tribes that were discontented with the house of David after Solomon's death.
The usurpation of the throne was therefore Jeroboam's first sin (vv. 1-24), to which he
added a second and much greater one immediately after his ascent of the throne,
namely, the establishment of an unlawful worship, by which he turned the political

division into a religious schism and a falling away from Jehovah the God-King of His
people (1Ki_12:25-33).
1Ki_12:1
Secession of the Ten Tribes (cf., 2 Chron 10:1-11:4). - 1Ki_12:1-4. Rehoboam went to
Shechem, because all Israel had come thither to make him king. “All Israel,” according to
what follows (cf., 1Ki_12:20, 1Ki_12:21), was the ten tribes beside Judah and Benjamin.
The right of making king the prince whom God had chosen, i.e., of anointing him and
doing homage to him (compare 1Ch_12:38, where ְ‫יך‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫ה‬ alternates with ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫,מ‬ (2Sa_
2:4; 2Sa_5:3), was an old traditional right in Israel, and the tribes had exercised it not
only in the case of Saul and David (1Sa_11:15; 2Sa_2:4; 2Sa_5:3), but in that of Solomon
also (1Ch_29:22). The ten tribes of Israel made use of this right on Rehoboam's ascent of
the throne; but instead of coming to Jerusalem, the residence of the king and capital of
the kingdom, as they ought to have done, and doing homage there to the legitimate
successor of Solomon, they had gone to Sichem, the present Nabulus (see at Gen_12:6
and Gen_33:18), the place where the ancient national gatherings were held in the tribe
of Ephraim (Jos_24:1), and where Abimelech the son of Gideon had offered himself as
king in the time of the Judges (Jdg_9:1.). On the choice of Sichem as the place for doing
homage Kimchi has quite correctly observed, that “they sought an opportunity for
transferring the government to Jeroboam, and therefore were unwilling to come to
Jerusalem, but came to Sichem, which belonged to Ephraim, whilst Jeroboam was an
Ephraimite.” If there could be any further doubt on the matter, it would be removed by
the fact that they had sent for Jeroboam the son of Nebat to come from Egypt, whither
he had fled from Solomon (1Ki_11:40), and attend this meeting, and that Jeroboam took
the lead in the meeting, and no doubt suggested to those assembled the demand which
they should lay before Rehoboam (1Ki_12:4).
(Note: “This pretext was no doubt furnished to the people by Jeroboam, who,
because he had formerly been placed above Ephraim as superintendent of the works,
could most craftily suggest calumnies, from the things which he knew better than
others.” - (Seb. Schmidt.)
BE SO , "1 Kings 12:1. Rehoboam went to Shechem — With a view to be there
declared Solomon’s successor by the people, and made king. It does not appear that
he called the people thither, but went thither because they had prevented him, and
pitched upon that place rather than upon Jerusalem, because it was most convenient
for all, being in the centre of the kingdom; and because, as it was in the potent tribe
of Ephraim, they supposed they might there more securely propose their grievances,
which they were resolved to do, and use a greater freedom of speech than they could
at Jerusalem, where the family of David was more powerful, more numerous, and
better supported. And it is not improbable but Jeroboam had a hand in this, and
that it was partly at least by his management, or that of some of his friends, who
durst not, perhaps, venture themselves at Jerusalem, that this city was made choice
of as a place of general convention. The glory of the kingdom of Israel was in its
height and perfection in Solomon’s reign. It was long in coming to it, but it soon
declined and began to sink and wither under Rehoboam his successor, as we find in
this chapter, in which we see the kingdom divided, and thereby weakened, and
made little in comparison of what it had been. Solomon probably supposed that by
taking to himself seven hundred wives that were princesses, he should greatly
strengthen his power, and enlarge his kingdom; and that from them and his three

hundred concubines he should have a numerous progeny to perpetuate that power
and dominion, in all its extent, to the latest generations. But if so, he was sadly
disappointed: of these thousand women, it appears, he had but one son, and he a
fool! and two daughters, mentioned 1 Kings 4:11; 1 Kings 4:15, to bear up his name,
and continue his race. “Sin,” says Henry, “is an ill way of building up a family.”
COFFMA , "THE KI GDOM OF ISRAEL DIVIDED
"The history of the divided kingdom has three phases:
(1) From Jeroboam to Omri in the north and from Rehoboam to Asa in the south - a
time of mutual hostility.
(2) Under Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram in Israel, and Jehoshaphat, Joram, and
Ahaziah in the south - a time of friendship due to marital alliances.
(3) From Jehu of Israel and Joash of Judah to the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.) -
another period of hostility."[1]SIZE>
The mutual jealousy and mistrust between Israel and Judah had always existed,
from the times of Jacob's polygamous union with Leah and Rachel. Ephraim, the
strongest of the northern tribes was descended from Rachel, whereas Judah the
strongest of the southern tribes came from Leah. This mutual hatred and distrust
surfaced in the times both of Gideon and of Jephthah as related in Judges. Saul,
Israel's first king, was from a small tribe located between Ephraim and Judah, and
was thus enabled to rule over all Israel. David reigned only in Judah for the first
seven and one half years; and, after being king over all Israel, he suffered two
rebellions, one under Absalom, and the other by Sheba of orthern Israel.
Furthermore, when David finally became king over all Israel, it was by a covenant
arrangement with orthern Israel. Solomon had indeed reigned over all Israel, but
as the result of a Davidic decree, and not by reason of any covenant with the whole
people. The ten tribes of the north were not willing to submit to Solomon's successor
on the basis of Rehoboam's being a son of Solomon. They had in mind an initial
period of negotiations before they submitted. Rehoboam wisely submitted to their
invitation and went to Shethem.
Shethem was a place of great historical interest to Israel. "The names of Abraham
(Genesis 12:6), Jacob (Genesis 32:18), Joshua (Joshua 24:1), Gideon and Abimelech
(Israel's first experience with a king) (Judges 9:6), and Joseph who was buried there
(Joshua 24:32) are all associated with Shechem. It was here that the reading of the
Law of Moses was staged at the twin mountains during the conquest (Joshua
8:33)."[2]
REHOBOAM SUCCEEDED SOLOMO AS KI G OF ISRAEL
"And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make

him king. And it came to pass when Jeroboam the son of ebat heard of it (for he
was yet in Egypt whither he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and
Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the
children of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our
yoke grievous: therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy
yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them,
Depart ye for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed."
"Rehoboam" (1 Kings 12:1). The last verse of the preceding chapter recorded the
fact of his having been made king in the place of Solomon, but northern Israel called
a general assembly of the ten northern tribes at Shechem, to which they invited
Rehoboam, with a view to negotiating with him for a reduction in the heavy burdens
of taxation and forced labor so long imposed upon them during the reign of
Solomon.
"Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines; and yet we read of only one son he
had to bear his name, and he was a fool."[3]
The age of this prince at the time he became king is disputed. He is said to be "forty-
one" (1 Kings 14:21); but that translation is questionable. "The Vatican manuscript
and the Septuagint (LXX) in 1 Kings 14:24a state that he was only sixteen."[4]
However, Snaith warns us that, "The Septuagint (LXX) is not nearly as satisfactory
as the Masoretic text."[5] Of course, some scholars do their usual magic on O.T.
numbers and read it as "twenty-one" instead of "forty-one." If indeed Rehoboam
was forty-one years of age when he came to the throne, Solomon must have married
Rehoboam's Ammonite mother at quite an early age and before his father David
died.
"Therefore make thou the grievous service of our father ... lighter" (1 Kings 12:4).
It is amazing to this writer that respected and honored scholars complain that these
objections were not justified. "The complaint was groundless and unjust. ever did
the people live more at ease than did Israel, nor in greater plenty."[6] Even Keil
called these complaints, "a pretext."[7] Much as we respect the opinions of such
learned men, we nevertheless find that the advice of the old counselors who had
spoken with Solomon, and who advised Rehoboam to ease the peoples' burdens
indicates that there must have been some basis for the dissatisfaction of the people,
who soon demonstrated their hatred of forced labor by stoning Adoram to death.
COKE, "1 Kings 12:1. Rehoboam went to Shechem— Shechem stood not only in the
centre of the kingdom of Israel, but in the middle of the tribe of Ephraim, wherein
was the greater number of mal-contents. It was, therefore, very probably, by the
management of Jeroboam, or some of his friends who durst not, perhaps, venture
themselves at Jerusalem, that this city was made choice of as a place of general
convention; because they might more securely propose their grievances, which they
were resolved to do, and use a greater freedom of speech than they could at
Jerusalem, where the family of David was more powerful, more numerous, and
better supported. See Calmet and Poole.

ELLICOTT, "The comparatively detailed style of the narrative of the reign of
Solomon is continued through 1 Kings 12, 13, 14. In the section 1 Kings 12:1-25 the
record of the Book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 10:1 to 2 Chronicles 11:4), after
omitting the whole description of Solomon’s idolatry, and the risings of rebellion
against his empire, returns to an almost exact verbal coincidence with the Book of
Kings.
The narrative of the great revolution which led to the disruption of the kingdom,
illustrates very strikingly the essential characteristic of the Scriptural history, which
is to be found, not principally in the miraculous events recorded from time to time
as an integral part of the history, but rather in the point of view from which all
events alike are regarded. (a) Thus it is clear that the revolution had, in the first
place, personal causes—in the stolid rashness of Rehoboam, mistaking obstinacy for
vigour, and not knowing how and when rightly to yield; and in the character of
Jeroboam, bold and active, astute and unscrupulous, the very type of a chief of
revolution. (b) Behind these, again, lay social and political causes. The increase of
wealth, culture, and civilisation under an enlightened despotism, which by its
peaceful character precluded all scope and distraction of popular energies in war,
created, as usual, desire and fitness for the exercise of freedom. The division of
feeling and interest between the royal tribe of Judah and the rest of the people,
headed by the tribe of Ephraim (for so many generations the strongest and the most
leading tribe of Israel)—already manifested from time to time, and fostered perhaps
by the less absolute allegiance of Israel to the house of David—now gave occasion to
rebellion, when the strong hand of Solomon was removed. Perhaps, moreover, the
intrigues of Egyptian jealousy may have already began to divide the Israelite people.
(c) But the Scriptural narrative, although it enables us to discover both these causes,
dwells on neither. It looks exclusively to moral and spiritual causes: “The thing was
from the Lord “—His righteous judgment on the idolatry, the pride, and the
despotic self-indulgence of the Court, shared, no doubt, by the princes and people of
Jerusalem, perhaps exciting a wholesome reaction of feeling elsewhere. What in
other history would be, at most, inferred by conjecture, as underlying more obvious
causes, is here placed in the forefront as a matter of course. For the history of Israel,
as a history of God’s dealings with the chosen people, is the visible and supernatural
type of the dealings of His natural Providence with all His creatures.
Verse 1
(1) All Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.—In the case of David, we
find that, when he was made king over Israel, “he made a league” with the elders of
Israel (2 Samuel 5:3), apparently implying a less absolute royalty than that to which
he had been anointed, without conditions, over the house of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4);
and in his restoration after the death of Absalom, there appears to be some
recognition of a right of distinct action on the part of the men of Israel in relation to
the kingdom (2 Samuel 19:9-10; 2 Samuel 19:41-43; 2 Samuel 20:1-2). Even in the
coronation of Solomon, we find distinction made between royalty “over all Israel
and over Judah.” (See 1 Kings 1:35; and comp. 1 Kings 4:1.) Accordingly,

Rehoboam seems to succeed without question to the throne of Judah, but to need to
be “made king” by the rest of Israel, with apparently some right on their part to
require conditions before acceptance. It is significant, however, that this ceremonial
is fixed, not at Jerusalem, but at Shechem, the chief city of Ephraim, of ancient
dignity, even from patriarchal times, as of singular beauty and fertility of position,
which became, as a matter of course, the capital of the northern kingdom after the
disruption. Perhaps, in this arrangement, which seems to have had no precedent,
there was some omen of revolution.
EBC, "A EW REIG
1 Kings 12:1-5
"A foolish son is the calamity of his father."
- Proverbs 19:13.
"He left behind him Roboam, even the foolishness of the people, and one that had
no understanding."
- Sirach 47:23.
REHOBOAM, who was Solomon’s only son, succeeded in Jerusalem without
opposition, B.C. 937. But the northern tribes were in no mood to regard as final the
prerogative acceptance of the son of Solomon by the rival tribe of Judah. David had
won them by his vivid personality; Solomon had dazzled them by his royal
magnificence. It did not follow that they were blindly to accept a king who emerged
for the first time from the shadow of the harem, and was the son of an Ammonitess,
who worshipped Chemosh. Instead of going to Rehoboam at Jerusalem as the tribes
had gone to David at Hebron, they summoned an assembly at their ancient city of
Shechem, on the site of the modern ablus, between Mount Ebal and Gerizim. In
this fortress-sanctuary they determined, as "men of Israel," to bring their
grievances under the notice of the new sovereign before they formally ratified his
succession. According to one view they summoned Jeroboam, who had already
returned to Zeredah, to be their spokesman. When the assembly met they told the
king that they would accept him if he would lighten their grievous service which his
father had put upon them. Rehoboam, taken by surprise, said that they should
receive his answer in "three days." In the interval he consulted the aged counselors
of his father. Their answer was astute in its insight into human nature. It resembled
the "long promises, short performance" which Guido da Montefeltro recommended
to Pope Boniface VIII in the case of the town-of Penestrino. They well understood
the maxim of "omnia serviliter pro imperio," which has paved the way to power of
many a usurper front Otho to Bolingbroke. "Give the people a civil answer," they
said; "tell them that you are their servant. Content with this they will be scattered to
their homes, and you will bind them to your yoke forever." In an answer so
deceptive, but so immoral, the corrupting influence of the Solomonian autocracy is

as conspicuous as in that of the malapert youths who make their appeal to the king’s
conceit.
"Who knoweth whether his son will be a wise man or a fool?" asks Solomon in the
Book of Proverbs. Apparently he had done little or nothing to save his only son from
being the latter. Despots in polygamous households, whether in Palestine or
Zululand, live in perpetual dread of their own sons, and generally keep them in
absolute subordination. If Rehoboam had received the least political training, or
had been possessed of the smallest common sense, he would have been able to read
the signs of the times sufficiently well to know that everything might be lost by
blustering arrogance, and everything gained by temporizing plausibility. Had
Rehoboam been a man like David, or even like Saul in his better day, he might have
grappled to himself the affections of his people as with hooks of steel by seizing the
opportunity of abating their burdens, and offering them a sincere assurance that he
would study their peace and welfare above all. Had he been a man of ordinary
intelligence, he would have seen that the present was not the moment to exacerbate a
discontent which was already dangerous. But the worldly-wise counsel of the elders
of Solomon was utterly distasteful to a man who, after long insignificance, had just
begun to feel the vertigo of autocracy. His sense of his right was strong in exact
proportion to his own worthlessness. He turned to the young men who had grown
up with him, and who stood before him-the jeunesse doree of a luxurious and
hypocritical epoch, the aristocratic idlers in whom the insolent self-indulgence of an
enervated society had expelled the old spirit of simple faithfulness. Their answer
was the sort of answer which Buckingham and Sedley might have suggested to
Charles II in face of the demands of the Puritans; and it was founded on notions of
inherent prerogative, and "the right Divine of kings to govern wrong," such as the
Bishops might have instilled into James I at the Hampton Court Conference, or
Archbishop Laud into Charles I in the days of "Thorough."
"Threaten this insolent canaille," they said, "with your royal severity. Tell them
that you do not intend to give up your sacred right to enforced labor, such as your
brother of Egypt has always enjoyed. Tell them that your little finger shall be
thicker than your father’s loins, and that instead of his whips you will chastise them
with leaded thongs. That is the way to show yourself every inch a king."
The insensate advice of these youths proved itself attractive to the empty and
infatuated prince. He accepted it in the dementation which is a presage of ruin; for,
as the pious historian says, "the cause was from the Lord."
The announcement of this incredibly foolish reply woke in the men of Israel an
answering shout of rebellion. In the rhythmic war-cry of Sheba, the son of Bichri,
which had become proverbial, {2 Samuel 20:1} they cried:-
"What portion have we in David? either have we inheritance in the son of Jesse,
To your tents, O Israel: ow see to thine own house, David!"
Unable to appease the wild tumult, Rehoboam again showed his want of sense by

sending an officer to the people whose position and personality were most sure to be
offensive to them. He sent "Adoram, who was over the tribute"-the man who stood,
before the Ephraimites especially, as the representative of everything in
monarchical government which was to them most entirely odious. Josephus says
that he hoped to mollify the indignant people. But it was too late. They stoned the
aged Al-ham-Mas with stones that he died; and when the foolish king witnessed or
heard of the fate of a man who had grown grey as the chief agent of depotism he felt
that it was high time to look after his own safety. Apparently be had come with no
other escort than that of the men of Judah who formed a part of the national militia.
Of Cherethites, Pelethites, and Gittites we hear no more. The princeling of a
despoiled and humiliated kingdom was perhaps in no condition to provide the pay
of these foreign mercenaries. The king found that the name of David was no longer
potent, and that royalty had lost its awful glamour. He made an effort to reach his
chariot, and, barely succeeding, fled with headlong speed to Jerusalem. From that
day forever the unity of Israel was broken, and "the twelve tribes" became a name
for two mutually antagonistic powers. The men of Israel at once chose Jeroboam for
their king, and an event was accomplished which had its effect on the history of all
succeeding times. The only Israelites over whom the House of David continued to
rule were those who, like the shattered remnant of Simeon, dwelt in the cities of
Judah. {1 Kings 12:17}
Thus David’s grandson found that his kingdom over a people had shrunk to the
headship of a tribe, with a sort of nominal suzerainty over Edom and part of
Philistia. He was reduced to the comparative insignificance of David’s own position
during the first seven years, when he was only king in Hebron. This disruption was
the beginning of endless material disasters to both kingdoms; but it was the
necessary condition of high spiritual blessings for "it was of the Lord."
Politically it is easy to see that one cause of the revolt lay in the too great rapidity in
which kings, who, as it was assumed, were to be elective, or at least to depend on the
willing obedience of the people, had transformed themselves into hereditary despots.
Judah might still accept the sway of a king of her own tribe; but the powerful and
jealous Ephraimites, at the head of the orthern Confederation, refused to regard
themselves as the destined footstool for a single family. As in the case of Saul and of
David, they determined once more to accept no king who did not owe his
sovereignty to their own free choice.
PARKER, "The Sin of Jeroboam
1 Kings 12
Kings must build. The enlargement and decorations of cities is pleasant to subjects.
They sometimes mistake building for security, as for example in the case of Jericho.
Jeroboam built Shechem. (See Judges 9:45.) The meaning is that Jeroboam enlarged
and fortified the old capital of Ephraim, which was now to become the royal city of

Israel. Antiquity has always been an element of value. o new city could have had
the charm of Shechem. How to attach the new to the old has always been a critical
problem for all leaders.
Jeroboam also built (restored, completed, fortified) Penuel. The ancient name was
Peniel. (See Genesis 32:30.) Penuel was on tolerably high ground, higher at all
events than Succoth. It lay on an important route and commanded the fords of
Jabbok. (See Judges 8:17.) Gideon destroyed the fort or tower, and probably
Jeroboam rebuilt it. The exact site of Penuel is now unknown.
"And Jeroboam said in his heart, ow shall the kingdom return to the house of
David: if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then
shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam, king
of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam, king of Judah" ( 1
Kings 12:26-27).
It was easier to do the outward work of building, than to do the inward work of
establishing the loyalty of excited men. This reflection gives an insight into the
character Jeroboam. (1) He was far-sighted; (2) he was highly imaginative; (3) he
was appalled by the very grandeur of his own success. It began to overweight him. It
threw a shadow on the future. ow all these characteristics are only good so far as
they are turned to good purposes. They are amongst the highest qualities or powers,
but they may be turned to the ruin of their possessor. Edged instruments sometimes
tempt men to commit suicide.
This reflection also throws light upon the new position of Jeroboam; (1) the old
might Revelation -assert its supremacy; (2) through the religious emotions political
ascendency might be Revelation -established; (3) the people were part of a great
whole, and Rehoboam was their lawful king. It will therefore be intensely
interesting to find out how a shrewd and powerful man will conduct himself in such
a crisis. Here is the answer:—"Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two
calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem;
behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt. And he set the one in
Bethel, and the other put he in Dan" ( 1 Kings 12:28-29).
There are many lessons arising out of this arrangement, lessons of universal
application; let us try to seize some of them.
(1) Here is a distinct oversight of Jeroboam"s divine call to the throne.
(2) Here is an attempt to meet earthly difficulties by earthly stratagems. The help of
heaven is not invoked. The king took the case wholly into his own hand.
(3) Here is an attempt to pass off the counterfeit for the real,—the two golden calves
were set up as God. The religious element in human nature must be provided for.
Kings have to consider it. Scientists must not ignore it Even atheists have to cope
with it. These be thy gods,—Money, ature, Self, Continuity, Development.—It is

for the Christian teacher to set up the true God and Saviour of the world.
(4) Here is the distinct abuse of divine providence. Jeroboam was called to the
kingdom by the Lord, yet the very first thing he does is to ignore the Lord who
called him, and put up two calves of gold in his place. Success ill-used is the ruin of
any man. The prosperity which forgets the God who gave it is the greatest calamity
of human life. Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.
(5) Here is an instance of the ease with which discipline is relaxed, and a proof that
relaxed discipline leads to the loosening and deterioration of character. "It is too
much for you to go up to Jerusalem," said the king. An appeal to the weak side of
human character.—It is an appeal made today; (a) you are not fit to go to church;
(b) it is too far to go; (c) the weather is unfavourable. It is easy to set man in
downward motion.—When discipline is relaxed, the whole character will easily fall
to pieces. (6) Here is the exact value which Jeroboam put upon the intelligence and
dignity of his subjects. He gave them a calf for a god! Refined people will have
refined gods. Refined gods will help to make a refined people. In this respect the
Christian religion pays the highest tribute to human intelligence. It calls men to a
God infinite in every perfection. An argument in support of the Christian religion
may be founded on this fact.—Judge a religion by its god.—Judge a people by the
kind of god that will satisfy them.—If a calf will do, what must be their intelligence?
If nature will do, what must be their emotion? If science will do, what must be their
moral sense? If nothing will do, what must be their whole organisation?
On the side of the people there was (1) Utter forgetfulness of the solemn and holy
history of Israel; (2) a moral lethargy that exposed itself to every temptation; (3) a
spiritual debasement that preferred personal ease to religious discipline.—People
who can be content with a calf for a god may well be content with a rebel for a
king.—The perversion of religious feeling carries with it the perversion of all other
feeling.—As worship is debased, patriotism is enfeebled.
"And he set, the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a
sin: for the people went to worship before the one even unto Dan. And he made an
house of high places, and made Levites of the lowest of the people, which were not of
the sons of Levi" ( 1 Kings 12:29-31).
Jereboam"s power of management comes out here; he excelled in organisation. The
calves were set up at opposite ends of the kingdom. ote the lessons: (1) Clever
management of religious affairs is no proof of personal piety or godliness. (2) There
is a temptation when religion is taken under imperial patronage or direction to
subordinate the religious to the political—Jeroboam said in effect, "I must take care
of the kingdom whatever comes of the Church: the king first, and God afterwards."
(3) How possible it is to make people believe that holy places make holy deeds.
Herein see the cunning of Jeroboam. Bethel and Dan were both sacred places; the
one, Bethel, would touch the sentiment of the southerns; the other, Daniel , would
touch the sentiment of the dwellers in northern Palestine. (About Bethel see Genesis
28:11-19, Genesis 35:9-15, 1 Samuel 7:16. About Dan see Judges 18:30, Judges

18:31.) (4) Observe that when impious kings venture to make priests they make
convenient tools for themselves. They are afraid of high intelligence, noble
character, divine inspiration, and daring power.—They want their own servants,
not God"s.—The true ministry is called of heaven.—If Jeroboam first offered the
office to the Levites and they refused it, their refusal was a proof of their divine
election.—The expression "made priests of the lowest of the people" means literally
"from the ends of the people," equal to "from all ranks of the people."
"So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the
eighth month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the
children of Israel; and he offered upon the altar and burnt incense" ( 1 Kings
12:33).
Thus the king himself became a priest: his power of management and scheming is
once more brought to bear. He who had managed great imperial works of a material
kind was tempted to measure his intellectual sagacity against religious problems. So
Jeroboam set up a system of his own. He changed the festival month. Where
everything has been appointed and determined by God no change is permissible.
Under such circumstances he who would change a date would change a doctrine.
God specified for the candlesticks and the snuffers as well as for the mercy seat and
the cherubim.—Having brought the office of a priest into contempt, the king sought
to make it respectable by assuming it himself,—so we patch our own poor work, and
cover our decrepitude with a mantle of gold.
ote
The leading object of Jeroboam"s policy was to widen the breach between the two
kingdoms, and to rend asunder those common interests among all the descendants
of Jacob, which it was one great object of the law to combine and interlace. To this
end he scrupled not to sacrifice the most sacred and inviolable interests and
obligations of the covenant people, by forbidding his subjects to resort to the one
temple and altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem, and by establishing shrines at Dan and
Bethel—the extremities of his kingdom—where "golden calves" were set up as the
symbols of Jehovah, to which the people were enjoined to resort and bring their
offerings. The pontificate of the new establishment he united to his crown, in
imitation of the Egyptian kings. He was officiating in that capacity at Bethel,
offering incense, when a prophet appeared, and in the name of the Lord, announced
a coming time, as yet far off, in which a king of the house of David, Josiah by name,
should burn upon the unholy altar the bones of its ministers. He was then preparing
to verify, by a commissioned prodigy, the truth of the oracle he had delivered, when
the king attempted to arrest him, but was smitten with palsy in the arm he stretched
forth. At the same moment the threatened prodigy took place, the altar was rent
asunder, and the ashes strewed far around. This measure had, however, no abiding
effect. The policy on which Jeroboam acted lay too deep in what he deemed the vital
interests of his separate kingdom, to be even thus abandoned; and the force of the
considerations which determined his conduct may in part be appreciated from the
fact that no subsequent king of Israel, however well disposed in other respects, ever

ventured to lay a finger on this schismatical establishment. Hence "the sin of
Jeroboam, the son of ebat, wherewith he sinned and made Israel to sin," became a
standing phrase in describing that iniquity from which no king of Israel departed ( 1
Kings 12:25-33; 1 Kings 13).
GUZIK, "A. Rehoboam and the division of Israel.
1. (1 Kings 12:1-5) The elders of Israel offer Rehoboam the throne of Israel.
And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him
king. So it happened, when Jeroboam the son of ebat heard it (he was still in
Egypt, for he had fled from the presence of King Solomon and had been dwelling in
Egypt), that they sent and called him. Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of
Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy;
now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke
which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three
days, then come back to me.” And the people departed.
a. Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him
king: This was a logical continuation of the Davidic dynasty. David was succeeded
by his son Solomon, and now Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, was assumed to be the
next king.
i. Rehoboam was the only son of Solomon that we know by name. Solomon had 1000
wives and concubines, yet we read of one son he had to bear up his name, and he
was a fool. This demonstrates that sin is a bad way of building up a family.
ii. Shechem was a city with a rich history. Abraham worshipped there (Genesis
12:6). Jacob built an altar and purchased land there (Genesis 33:18-20). Joseph was
buried there (Joshua 24:32). It was also the geographical center of the northern
tribes. All in all, it showed that Rehoboam was in a position of weakness, having to
meet the ten northern tribes on their territory, instead of demanding that
representatives come to Jerusalem.
b. When Jeroboam the son of ebat heard it: Jeroboam was mentioned previously
in 1 Kings 11:26-40. God told him through a prophet that he would rule over a
portion of a divided Israel. aturally, Jeroboam was interested in Solomon’s
successor. He was specifically part of the group of elders that addressed Rehoboam.
c. Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service
of your father: Solomon was a great king, but he took a lot from the people. The
people of Israel wanted relief from the heavy taxation and forced service of
Solomon’s reign, and they offered allegiance to Rehoboam if he agreed to this.
i. God warned Israel about this in 1 Samuel 8:10-19, when through Samuel He
spoke of what a king would take from Israel. After the warning the people still

wanted a king, and now they knew what it was like to be ruled by a taking king.
ii. Sadly, the elders of Israel made no spiritual demand or request on Rehoboam.
Seemingly, the gross idolatry and apostasy of Solomon didn’t bother them at all.
PETT, "Rehoboam’s Arrogance Alienates Israel (1 Kings 12:1-16).
The elders of Israel came together with a view to anointing Rehoboam as king on
condition that he would guarantee them a somewhat easier lifestyle, but he was too
arrogant to take advantage of the offer, and instead listened to the advice of younger
hotheads like himself. The result was, that under the influence of Jeroboam, Israel
asserted its independence and decided to choose its own king for itself.
However, what is of the greatest interest to the writer is not the to-ing and fro-ing
between Rehoboam on the one hand and Jeroboam and the elders of Israel on the
other, which as far as he is concerned is simply part of the by-play, but on the fact
that ‘it was a thing brought about by YHWH, that He might establish His word
which YHWH spoke by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of
ebat’ (1 Kings 12:15). It was that history was moving forward in accordance with
the word of YHWH.
Analysis.
a And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to
make him king (1 Kings 12:1).
b And it came about, when Jeroboam the son of ebat heard of it (for he was
yet in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam
dwelt in Egypt, and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the assembly of
Israel came, and spoke to Rehoboam, saying (1 Kings 12:2-3).
c “Your father made our yoke grievous. ow therefore you make the grievous
service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, lighter, and we will
serve you” (1 Kings 12:4).
d And he said to them, “Depart yet for three days, then come to me again.”
And the people departed (1 Kings 12:5).
e And king Rehoboam took counsel with the old men, who had stood before
Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, “What counsel do you give me so as to
return answer to this people?” And they spoke to him, saying, “If you will be a
servant to this people this day, and will serve them, and answer them, and speak
good words to them, then they will be your servants for ever” (1 Kings 12:6-7).
f But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and
took counsel with the young men who were grown up with him, who stood before
him (1 Kings 12:8).
e And he said to them, “What counsel do you give, that we may return answer
to this people, who have spoken to me, saying, ‘Make the yoke that your father put
on us lighter?’ ” And the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him,
saying, “Thus shall you say to this people who spoke to you, saying, ‘Your father

made our yoke heavy, but do you make it lighter to us’, thus shall you speak to
them, “My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my father
burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you
with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:9-11).
d So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king
had bidden saying, “Come to me again the third day” (1 Kings 12:12).
c And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the counsel of the old
men, which they had given him, and spoke to them after the counsel of the young
men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My
father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1 Kings
12:13-14).
b So the king did not listen to the people, for it was something brought about of
YHWH, that he might establish his word, which YHWH spoke by Ahijah the
Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of ebat (1 Kings 12:15).
a And when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people
answered the king, saying, “What portion have we in David? either have we
inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel. ow see to your own house,
David.” So Israel departed to their tents (1 Kings 12:16).
ote that in ‘a’ all Israel came to make Rehoboam king in Shechem and in the
parallel they rejected him and returned home. In ‘b’ Jeroboam returned from exile
in Egypt to support the pleas of the men of Israel, and in the parallel the king did
not listen because of His plan to make Jeroboam king. In ‘c’ the people demanded
that their load might be made lighter, and in the parallel Rehoboam said that he
would make it heavier. In ‘d’ Rehoboam called on the people to give him three days
in which to make his decision, and in the parallel they returned to him on the third
day. In ‘e’ Rehoboam sought the advice of the old men and received their reply, and
in the parallel Rehoboam sought the advice of the young men and received their
reply. Centrally in ‘f’ Rehoboam turned from the counsel of the old men to receive
the counsel of the young men who had grown up with him.
1 Kings 12:1
‘And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him
king.’
As a result of the death of Solomon all Israel gathered at the Israelite sanctuary at
Shechem in order to determine who should rule them. They had a sense of
independence that was unfortunately unrecognised by Rehoboam. But they also
seemingly had no other idea in their minds but to submit to Rehoboam as long as it
was on the right terms. That was their intention in gathering at Shechem.
Shechem was the place to which Israel had first gathered under Joshua for the
reading of the Law and the renewal of the covenant (Joshua 8:30-35), and the place
where Joshua had renewed the covenant after the initial stages of the invasion were
over and Israel were settled in the land (Joshua 24:1-28). It was a recognised place
at which YHWH had recorded His ame (suggested by Joshua 8:30-31 with Exodus
20:24). It was the place where the stone of witness had been set up (Joshua 24:26)
and it may well be that the regular reading of the covenant required by the Law of

Moses took place at Shechem whose two local mountains Ebal and Gerizim, together
with the valley that lay between them, formed a natural amphitheatre (see
Deuteronomy 27:1-26). Its very sacredness gave a sense of solidity and assurance to
Israel. Here at Shechem they would surely find YHWH’s will.
This is a reminder to us that while Jerusalem had finally been established as the
Central Sanctuary, (even though the existence of the Tabernacle was still within
living memory), there were other sanctuaries at which YHWH could be legally
worshipped. Later we learn of an altar on Mount Carmel that was declared to be an
altar of YHWH usable by Elijah (1 Kings 18:30-32). And Elijah mentions other such
acknowledged altars of YHWH (1 Kings 19:10).
PETT, "Verses 1-31
The Kingdom In Crisis And The Collapse Of An Empire (1 Kings 12:1 to 1 Kings
14:31).
The death of Solomon, as always with the death of a king who had ruled powerfully
for a long time and had been somewhat autocratic, resulted in hopes being raised
among the people that things might now be made better for them. Indeed they
appear to have been quite satisfied with the thought of Rehoboam being their king,
as long as he would meet them halfway, and they actually gathered at Shechem to
negotiate with him for that purpose. It was a real opportunity. Had Rehoboam
made concessions, and retained the loyalty of Israel, the combined kingdom would
have remained a power, and the tributaries watching in expectation might have
hesitated about making trouble. But let Israel and Judah once become divided into
two nations, and the driving force and the power base would be lost, and men like
Hadad in Edom and Rezon in Damascus (1 Kings 11:14-25) would soon ensure the
collapse of the empire. And ever waiting in the wings for the collapse of the empire
was the powerful Shishak of Egypt in a revived Egypt, just waiting for his
opportunity to break up the trade monopoly which Solomon had built up.
On the death of Solomon Israel were ready to accept Rehoboam as their king, and
they assembled at Shechem, which they clearly saw as the local Sanctuary of the
northern tribes when it came to such matters. The very choice of Shechem indicated
that they were calling on the king to recognise his obligations under the Law of
Moses. Shechem was the place to which Israel had first gathered under Joshua for
the reading of the Law and the renewal of the covenant (Joshua 8:30-35), in
obedience to the command of YHWH through Moses (Deuteronomy 11:29-32;
Deuteronomy 27:1-26), and was the place where Joshua himself had renewed the
covenant after the initial stages of the invasion were over and Israel were settled in
the land (Joshua 24:1-28). It was a recognised place at which YHWH had recorded
His ame (suggested by Joshua 8:30-31 with Exodus 20:24). It was the place where
the stone of witness had been set up (Joshua 24:26) and it may well be that the
regular reading of the covenant required by the Law of Moses took place at
Shechem whose two local mountains Ebal and Gerizim, together with the narrow
valley that lay between them, formed a natural amphitheatre (see Deuteronomy

27:1-26).
Rehoboam should, of course have recognised that the very choice of this site for
their gathering emphasised that Israel saw themselves as separate from Judah when
it came to crowning a new king, and were calling on him to renew his obedience to
the Law of Moses, and to walking in the ways of YHWH, something which Solomon
had signally failed to do. Solomon had previously slipped into the joint kingship so
easily, because he had done it while David was still alive, and when the kingdom was
at peace. It had thus been easy to forget this independent feeling in Israel, and the
fact that kingship in Israel had always been by popular acclamation. It had been so
for Saul (1 Samuel 10:24; 1 Samuel 11:12-13), for David (2 Samuel 5:1-3) and
indeed for Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:22). And we should not forget how delicate had
been the situation after Absalom’s rebellion (2 Samuel 19:9-15; 2 Samuel 19:41 to 2
Samuel 20:2). Israel did not see themselves as Judah’s lapdog.
But sadly Rehoboam had been brought up in Solomon’s court, and he had been
bred with a sense of arrogance and with the feeling that all Israel and Judah were
there to do his bidding. He saw himself as ‘a king like the kings of the nations’. In
his view the people were simply there to be whipped into line. And while when he
took advice from his father’s older counsellors they gave him good advice as to the
need to meet the people half way, he preferred the advice of the younger arrogant
aristocrats like himself who assured him that what was needed was to show them
who was in charge. So what brought about Rehoboam’s rejection was the arrogance
that had become so much a part of Solomon’s lifestyle, and which he had passed on
to his son. In contrast, in the case of Jeroboam, his downfall would come about
through his turning his back on the covenant and diluting Yahwism, in order, as he
saw it, to protect his kingdom. This would result in his destroying the religious heart
of Israel, something which would affect all the kings who followed him. Thus both
aspects of Solomon’s failures came out in his successors.
Overall Analysis (1 Kings 12:1 to 1 Kings 14:31).
a Rehoboam’s Intransigence Alienates Israel (1 Kings 12:1-16).
b Rehoboam Is Rejected By Israel And Jeroboam Becomes King of Israel In
Accordance With YHWH’s Covenant (1 Kings 12:17-24).
c In Disobedience Jeroboam Sets Up The Golden Calves, Appoints Alien
Priests And Establishes Alien High Places (1 Kings 12:25-32).
d The Alien Altar Is Condemned By A Man Of God (1 Kings 12:33 to 1 Kings
13:10).
c In Disobedience The Man Of God Eats And Drink In Israel And Is Slain (1
Kings 13:11-32).
b Jeroboam’s House Loses The Kingship Because Of The Sins of Jeroboam (1
Kings 13:33 to 1 Kings 14:20).
a The Unhappy Reign Of Rehoboam Which Is The Consequence Of His
Intransigence (1 Kings 14:21-31).
ote that in ‘a’ Rehoboam’s reign commenced unhappily and in the parallel it
continued unhappily. In ‘b’ Jeroboam received the Kingship through YHWH’s

covenant, and in the parallel his house loses the kingship because of his sin. In ‘c’
Jeroboam acts in disobedience against YHWH and in the parallel the man of God
acts in disobedience against YHWH. Central in ‘d’ is the condemnation of the alien
altar by the man of God.
PULPIT, "HE REVOLT OF THE TE TRIBES.—With the reign of Rehoboam, on
which our historian now enters, we begin the second great period in the history of
the Hebrew monarchy, so far as it is related in these Books of KI GS. The first,
which comprises the Augustan age of Israel, the short-lived maturity of the race in
the reign of Solomon, has extended over forty years, from B.C. 1015 to B.C. 975.
The second, which is the period of the existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and
Judah side by side—that is to say, from the disruption to the carrying away of Israel
into captivity—extends over two centuries and a half, viz; from B.C. 975 to B.C. 722,
and is, with few exceptions, a period of steady and shameful decline.
And in giving his account of the division of the kingdom, our historian, more suo,
confines himself to the recital of actual facts, and hardly speaks of their hidden
causes. Yet the sixteenth verse of this chapter reveals to us very clearly one of the
secret springs of the dissatisfaction which existed at the date of Rehoboam's
accession, one of the influences which ultimately led to the disruption of Israel.
Jealousy on the part of Ephraim of the powerful tribe of Judah had undoubtedly
something to do with the revolution of which we now read. The discontent
occasioned by Solomon's levies and the headstrong folly of Rehoboam were the
immediate causes, but influences much deeper and of longer standing were also at
work. The tribe of Ephraim had clearly never thoroughly acquiesced in the
superiority which its rival, the tribe of Judah, by furnishing to the nation its
sovereigns, its seat of government, and its sanctuary, had attained. During the two
former reigns the envy of Ephraim had been held in check, but it was there, and it
only needed an occasion, such as Rehoboam afforded it, to blaze forth. That proud
tribe could not forget the glowing words in which both Jacob (Genesis 49:22-26,
"the strength of my head") and Moses (Deuteronomy 33:13-17) had foretold their
future eminence. They remembered, too, that their position—in the very centre of
the land was also the richest in all natural advantages. Compared with their
picturesque and fertile possessions, the territory of Judah was as a stony wilderness.
And for a long time they had enjoyed a certain superiority in the nation. In the time
of Joshua we find them fully conscious of their strength and numbers (Joshua
17:14), and the leader himself admits their power (verse 17). When the tabernacle
was first set up, it was at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim (Joshua 18:1), and
there the ark remained for more than three hundred years. And the pre-eminence of
Ephraim amongst the northern tribes is curiously evidenced by the way in which it
twice resented ( 8:1; 12:1) campaigns undertaken without its sanction and
cooperation. It and its sister tribe of Manasseh had furnished, down to the time of
David, the leaders and commanders of the people—Joshua, Deborah, Gideon,
Abimelech, and Samuel—and when the kingdom was established it was from the
allied tribe of Benjamin that the first monarch was selected. "It was natural that,
with such an inheritance of glory, Ephraim always chafed under any rival

supremacy". It was natural, too, that for seven years it should refuse allegiance to a
prince of the rival house of Judah. Even when, at the end of that time, the elders of
Israel recognized David as "king over Israel" (2 Samuel 5:8), the fires of jealousy, as
the revolt of Sheba and the curses of Shimei alike show, were not wholly
extinguished. And the transference of the sanctuary, as well as the sceptre, to
Judah—for Jerusalem, whilst mainly in the territory of Benjamin, was also on the
border of Judah—would occasion fresh heart burnings. It has been supposed by
some that Psalms 78:1-72, was penned as a warning to Ephraim against rebellion,
and to reconcile them to their loss of place and power; that, if so, it was not
effectual, and that the jealousy endured at a much later date Isaiah 11:13 shows.
There had probably been an attempt on the part of Jeroboam the Ephraimite to stir
up his and the neighbouring tribes against the ascendancy of Judah in the person of
Solomon. That first attempt proved abortive. But now that their magnificent king
was dead, now that the reins of government were held by his weak and foolish son,
the men of Ephraim resolved unless they could wrest from him very great
concessions, to brook the rule of Judah no longer and to have a king of their own
house.
1 Kings 12:1
And Rehoboam [see on 1 Kings 11:26, and compare the name εὐρύδηµος. The name
possibly indicates Solomon's ambitious hopes respecting him. The irony of history
alone emphasizes it. Ecclesiastes 2:18, Ecclesiastes 2:19 would seem to show that
Solomon himself had misgivings as to his son's abilities. "As the greatest persons
cannot give themselves children, so the wisest cannot give their children wisdom"
(Hall). His mother was aamah, an Ammonitess (1 Kings 14:31). It would appear
from 1 Kings 14:21, and 2 Chronicles 12:13, that he was 41 years of age at his
accession. But this is, to say the least, doubtful.
MACLARE 1-17, "HOW TO SPLIT A KINGDOM
The separation of the kingdom of Solomon into two weak and hostile states is, in one
aspect, a wretched story of folly and selfishness wrecking a nation, and, in another, a
solemn instance of divine retribution working its designs by men’s sins. The greater part
of this account deals with it in the former aspect, and shows the despicable motives of
the men in whose hands was the nation’s fate; but one sentence (1Ki_12:15) draws back
the curtain for a moment, and shows us the true cause. There is something very striking
in that one flash, which reveals the enthroned God, working through the ignoble strife
which makes up the rest of the story. This double aspect of the disruption of the
kingdom is the main truth about it which the narrative impresses on us.
As to the mere details of the incident, as a political revolution, they are in four stages.
First come the terms of allegiance offered to the new king. Rehoboam goes to Shechem,
because ‘Israel was gone’ there. The choice of the place is suspicious; for it was in the
tribe of Ephraim, and had been for a time the centre of national life; and its selection at
once indicated discontent with the preponderance of Jerusalem, and a wish to assert the
importance of the central tribes. No doubt, the choice of the latter city for the capital had

caused heart-burning, even during David’s time.
Adopting the reading of the Revised Version, we see another suspicious sign in the recall
of Jeroboam, and his selection as spokesman; for he had been in rebellion against
Solomon (1Ki_11:26), and therefore an exile. Probably he had now been the instigator of
the discontent of which he became the mouthpiece; and, in any case, his appearance as
the leader was all but a declaration of war. His former occupation as superintendent of
the forced labour exacted from his own tribe taught him where the shoe pinched, and
the weight of the yoke would not be lessened in his representations.
No doubt, the luxury and splendour of Solomon’s brilliant reign had an under side of
oppression, even though forced labour was not exacted from Israelites (1Ki_9:22); but
probably the severity was exaggerated in these complaints, which were plainly the
pretext for a revolt of which tribal jealousy was the main cause, and Jeroboam’s
ambition the spark that set light to the train. Certainly there was ignoring of the benefits
of the peaceful reign, which had brought security and commerce. But there was enough
truth in the complaint to make it plausible and effective for catching the people. Had
they a right to suspend their allegiance on compliance with their terms?
Israel was neither a despotism, nor simply a constitutional monarchy. God appointed
the kings, and had ordained the Davidic house to the throne; and therefore this making
terms was, in effect, asserting independence of God’s will. Jeroboam was scheming for a
crown. The people were shaking off their submission to God. It is very doubtful if
concession would have conciliated them. There is nothing elevated, not to say religious,
in their motives or acts.
Then comes Rehoboam on the scene. The one sensible thing that he did was to take
three days to think. Whether or no his little finger was thicker than his father’s loins, his
head was not half so wise. Ecclesiastes, speaking in Solomon’s name, reckons it a great
evil that he must leave his labour to his successor; ‘and who knoweth whether he shall be
a wise man or a fool?’ Certainly Rehoboam had little ‘wisdom’ either of the higher or
lower kind. It was the lower kind which the old counsellors of his father gave him,-that
wisdom which is mere cunning directed to selfish ends, and careless of honour or truth.
‘Flatter them to-day, speak them fair, promise what you do not mean to keep, and then,
when you are firm in the saddle, let them feel bit and spur.’ That was all these grey-
headed men had learned. If that was what passed for ‘wisdom’ in Solomon’s later days,
we need not wonder at revolt.
To act on such motives is bad enough, but to put them into plain words, and offer them
as the rule of a king’s conduct, is a depth of cynical contempt for truth and kingly honour
that indicates only too clearly how rotten the state of Israel was. Have we never seen
candidates for Parliament and the like on one side of the water, and for Congress,
Senate, or Presidency on the other, who have gone to school to the old men at Shechem?
The prizes of politicians are often still won by this stale device. The young counsellors
differ only in the means of gaining the object. Neither set has the least glimmer of the
responsibility of the office, nor ever thinks that God has any say in choosing the king.
Naked, undisguised selfishness animates both; only, as becomes their several ages, the
one set recommends crawling and the other bluster. Think of Saul hiding among the
staff, David going back to his sheep after he was anointed, Solomon praying for wisdom
to guide this people, and measure the depth of descent to this ignoble scramble for the
sweets of royalty!
According to 1Ki_14:21, Rehoboam was forty-one at this time, so his contemporaries
could not have been very young. But possibly the number in the present text is an error

for twenty-one, which would agree better with the tone of the reference to age here, and
with the rash counsel. Note the recurrence, both in Rehoboam’s question in 1Ki_12:9
and in the young advisers’ answer in 1Ki_12:10, of the obnoxious speech of the people.
That may be accidental, but it sounds as if both he and they were keeping their anger
warm by repeating the offensive complaint.
The Revised Version reads, ‘My little finger is thicker,’ etc., and so makes the sentence
not a threat, but the foundation of the following threat in an arrogant and empty
assertion of greater power. The fool always thinks himself wiser than the wise dead; the
‘living dog’ fancies that his yelp is louder than the roar of ‘the dead lion.’ What can be
done with a Rehoboam who brags that he is better than Solomon?
The threat which follows is inconceivably foolish; and all the more so because it probably
did not represent any definite intention, and certainly was backed by no force adequate
to carry it out. Passion and offended dignity are the worst guides for conduct. Threats
are always mistakes. A sieve of oats, not a whip, attracts a horse to the halter. If
Rehoboam had wished to split the kingdom, he could have found no better wedge than
this blustering promise of tyranny.
Next in this miserable story of imbecility and arrogance comes the answer to the
assembly. Shechem had seen many an eventful hour, but never one heavier with
important issues than that on which the united Israel met for the last time, and there, in
the rich valley with Ebal and Gerizim towering above them, heard the fateful answer of
this braggart. A dozen rash words brought about four hundred years of strife, weakness,
and final destruction. And neither the foolish speaker nor any man in that crowd
dreamed of the unnumbered evils to flow from that hour. Since issues are so far beyond
our sight, how careful it becomes us to be of motives! Angry counsels are always
blunders. No nation can prosper when moderate complaints are met by threats, and
‘spirited conduct,’ asserting dignity, is a sign of weakness, not of strength. For nations
and individuals that is true.
Here the historian draws back the curtain. On earth stand the insolent king and the now
mutinous people, each driving at their ends, and neither free of sin in their selfishness. A
stormy scene of passion, without thought of God, rages below, and above sits the Lord,
working His great purpose by men’s sin. That divine control does not in the least affect
the freedom or the guilt of the actors. Rehoboam’s disregard of the people’s terms was ‘a
thing brought about of the Lord,’ but it was Rehoboam’s sin none the less. That which,
looked at from the mere human side, is the sinful result of the free play of wrong
motives, is, when regarded from the divine side, the determinate counsel of God. The
greatest crime in the world’s history was at the same time the accomplishment of God’s
most merciful purpose. Calvary is the highest example of the truth, which embraces all
lesser instances of the wrath of man, which He makes to praise Him and effect His deep
designs.
Again, the rending of the kingdom was the punishment of sin, especially Solomon’s sin
of idolatry, which was closely connected with the extravagant expenditure that
occasioned the separation. So the so-called natural consequences of transgression
constitute its temporal punishment in part, and behind all these our eyes should be
clear-sighted enough to behold the operative will of God. This one piercing beam of
light, cast on that scene of insolence and rebellion, lights up all history, and gives the
principle on which it must be interpreted, if it is not to be misread.
Again, the punishment of sin, whether that of a community or of a single person, is sin.
The separation was sin, on both sides; it led to much more. It was the consequence of

previous departure. So ever the worst result of any sin is that it opens the door, like a
thief who has crept in through a window, to a band of brethren.
Lastly, we have the fierce rejoinder to the empty boast of Rehoboam, and the definitive
disruption of the nation. Jeroboam must have fanned the flame skilfully, or it would not
have burst out so quickly. There is no hesitation, nor any regret. The ominous cry, which
had been heard before, in Sheba’s abortive revolt, answers Rehoboam with
instantaneous and full-throated defiance. Rancorous tribal hatred is audible in it. Long
pent up jealousy and dislike of the dynasty of David has got breath at last: ‘To your tents,
O Israel! now see to thine own house, David!’
That roar from a thousand voices meant a good deal more than the cowed king’s vain
threats did. The angry men who raised it, and were the tools of a crafty conspirator, the
frightened courtiers and king who heard it, were alike in their entire oblivion of their
true Lord and Monarch. ‘God was not in all their thoughts.’ An enterprise begun in
disregard of Him is fated to failure. The only sure foundations of a nation are the fear of
the Lord and obedience to His will. If politics have not a religious basis, the Lord will
blow upon them, and they will be as stubble.
2 When Jeroboam son of ebat heard this (he was
still in Egypt, where he had fled from King
Solomon), he returned from[a]Egypt.
BAR ES, "Heard of it - i. e., of the death of Solomon and accession of Rehoboam.
This would be more clear without the division into chapters; which division, it must be
remembered, is without authority.
Dwelt in Egypt - By a change of the pointing of one word, and of one letter in
another, the Hebrew text here will read as in 2Ch_10:2, “returned out of Egypt; and they
sent and called him.”
In the Septuagint Version the story of Jeroboam is told in two different ways. The
general narrative agrees closely with the Hebrew text; but an insertion into the body of 1
Kings 12 - remarkable for its minuteness and circumstantiality - at once deranges the
order of the events, and gives to the history in many respects a new aspect and coloring.
This section of the Septuagint, though regarded by some as thoroughly authentic,
absolutely conflicts with the Hebrew text in many important particulars. In its general
outline it is wholly irreconcileable with the other narrative; and, if both stood on the
same footing, and we were free to choose between them, there could be no question
about preferring the history as given in our Version.

GILL, "And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet
in Egypt, heard of it,.... Of the death of Solomon, and of the meeting of the Israelites
at Shechem:
(for he was fled from the presence of King Solomon; see 1Ki_11:40.
and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) until the death of Solomon; some render the words,
"Jeroboam, returned out of Egypt" (d), which agrees with 2Ch_10:2, this he did on
hearing the above news, and on being sent for by some of his friends, as follows.
K&D, "1Ki_12:2-3
The construction of 1Ki_12:2, 1Ki_12:3 is a complicated one, since it is only in ‫ּאוּ‬‫ב‬ָ ַ‫ו‬ in
1Ki_12:3 that the apodosis occurs to the protasis ‫וגו‬ ַ‫ּע‬‫מ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִⅴ ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫,ו‬ and several circumstantial
clauses intervene. “And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard, sc., that
Solomon was dead and Rehoboam had been made king ... he was still in Egypt, however,
whither he had fled from king Solomon; and as Jeroboam was living in Egypt, they had
sent and called him ... that Jeroboam came and the whole congregation of Israel,” etc.
On the other hand, in 2Ch_10:2 the construction is very much simplified, and is
rendered clearer by the alteration of ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫צ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ְ ‫יר‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ֵ ַ‫,ו‬ “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt,” into
‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫צ‬ ִ ִ‫מ‬ ‫יר‬ ‫ב‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ָ ַ‫,ו‬ “that Jeroboam returned from Egypt.”
(Note: At the same time, neither this explanation in the Chronicles, nor the fact
that the Vulgate has the same in our text also, warrants our making alterations in the
text, for the simple reason that the deviation in the Chronicles and Vulgate is so
obviously nothing but an elucidation of our account, which is more obscurely
expressed. There is still less ground for the interpolation, which Thenius has
proposed, from the clauses contained in the Septuagint partly after 1Ki_11:43, partly
in 1 Kings 12 between 1Ki_12:24 and 1Ki_12:25, and in an abbreviated form once
more after 1Ki_13:34, so as to obtain the following more precise account of the
course of the rebellion which Jeroboam instigated, and of which we have not a very
minute description in 1Ki_11:26 : “Solomon having appointed Jeroboam
superintendent of the tributary labour in Ephraim, for the purpose of keeping in
check the Sichemites, who were probably pre-eminently inclined to rebel, directed
him to make a fortress, which already existed upon Mount Gerizim under the name
of Millo, into a strong prison ( ‫ה‬ ָ‫יר‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫צ‬) ), from which the whole district of Gerizim, the
table-land, received the name of the land of Zerirah, and probably made him
governor of it and invested him with great power. When holding this post, Jeroboam
rebelled against Solomon, but was obliged to flee. Having now returned from Egypt,
he assembled the members of his own tribe, and with them he first of all besieged
this prison, for the purpose of making himself lord of the surrounding district. Now
this castle was the citadel of the city in which Jeroboam was born, to which he had
just returned, and from which they fetched him to take part in the negotiations with
Rehoboam. Its ruins are still in existence, according to Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 99), and
from all that has been said it was not called Zeredah (1Ki_11:26), but (after the
castle) Zerira.” This is what Thenius says. But if we read the two longer additions of
the lxx quite through, we shall easily see that the words ᇛκοδόµησε τሬ Σαλωµᆹν τᆱν ᅚν
ᆊρει ᅠφραιʷ́µ do not give any more precise historical information concerning the

building of the Millo mentioned in 1Ki_11:27, since this verse is repeated
immediately afterwards in the following form: οᆗτος ᇛκοδόµησε τᆱν ᅎκραν ᅚν ταሏς
ᅎρσεσιν οᅺκου ᅠφραιʷ́µ οᆗτος συνέκλεισε τᆱν πόλιν ∆αβίδ, - but are nothing more than a
legendary supplement made by an Alexandrian, which has no more value than the
statement that Jeroboam's mother was named Sarira and was γυνᆱ πόρνη. The name
of the city Σαριρά is simply the Greek form of the Hebrew ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ְ‫,צ‬ which the lxx have
erroneously adopted in the place of ‫ה‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ְ‫,צ‬ as the reading in 1Ki_11:26. But in the
additional clauses in question in the Alexandrian version, Σαριρά is made into the
residence of king Jeroboam and confounded with Thirza; what took place at Thirza
according to 1Ki_14:17 (of the Hebrew text) being transferred to Sarira, and the
following account being introduced, viz., that Jeroboam's wife went ᅚκ Σαριρά to the
prophet Ahijah to consult him concerning her sick son, and on returning heard of the
child's death as she was entering the city of Sarira. - These remarks will be quite
sufficient to prove that the Alexandrian additions have not the least historical
worth.)
ELLICOTT, "(2) For he was fled.—In 2 Chronicles 10:2, and in the LXX. version
(or, rather versions, for there is variety of reading) of this passage, Jeroboam is
made to return from Egypt, on hearing of the death of Solomon, to his own city, and
to be “sent for” thence. This is obviously far more probable, and might be read in
the Hebrew by a slight alteration of the text.
PETT, "1 Kings 12:2-3
‘And it came about, when Jeroboam the son of ebat heard of it (for he was yet in
Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt
in Egypt, and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the assembly of
Israel came, and spoke to Rehoboam, saying,’
But Israel had not forgotten Jeroboam, the son of ebat, who had fought their
corner with Solomon, and they recognised that he was just the man to negotiate on
their behalf in this situation. So they sent to Egypt where he was a refugee, calling
on him to come and be their negotiator and mediator. And once he had arrived he
and the elders of Israel went to negotiate with Rehoboam. Jeroboam was seemingly
from one of Israel’s leading families (he was a ‘mighty man of
valour/wealth/property’), so that his worth and authority was recognised by all.
PULPIT, "And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of ebat [see on 1 Kings
11:26], who was yet in Egypt [The usual, and indeed the necessary, interpretation, if
we retain our present Hebrew text, is that these words refer, not as the context
would lead us to suppose, to the time indicated in 1 Kings 11:1, 1 Kings 11:3, etc;
but to the time of Solomon's death. But see below], heard of it [The words "of it,"
though not in the original, are a fair and legitimate interpretation of its meaning.
Whether they are retained or not, the natural and grammatical interpretation is

that it was the visit to Shechem, just before mentioned, of which Jeroboam heard.
But according to our received text, Jeroboam was one of the deputation which met
king Rehoboam at Shechem. It has been found necessary, consequently, to
understand the words of the death of Solomon, which has been related in 1 Kings
11:43. So the Vulgate, Audita morte ejus. Similarly the LXX. Cod. Vat. inserts the
substance of this verse as part of 1 Kings 11:43. (The Cod. Alex. follows the
Hebrew.) But this interpretation is surely strained and unnatural] (for he was fled
from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) [The parallel
passage in 2 Chronicles 10:1-19. has here, "And Jeroboam returned from Egypt"
( ‫ממץ‬ ‫יר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ‫ַש‬‫יּ‬‫ו‬ instead of ‫במץ‬ ‫יר‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ֵשׁ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬). And as some copies of the LXX. have ̀‫י‬‫ךב‬
‫́נפןץ‬‫ץ‬‫̓ד‬‫י‬‫ב‬ ‫̓מ‬‫ו‬ ‫̀ל‬‫ב‬‫גן‬ ‫̔וסן‬‫י‬ ‫́ףפסורום‬‫ו‬‫̓נ‬‫ו‬ and the Vulgate has "Reversus est de Aegypto," Dathe,
B‫ה‬hr, al. would adopt this reading here. It is true it involves but a slight change, and
it may simplify the construction. But no change is really required, B‫ה‬hr's objection,
that in the text, as it stands, we have an unmeaning repetition, "He was still in
Egypt… and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt," loses all its force if we understand
Jeroboam to have continued his residence in Egypt (as the LXX. says he did) after
hearing of Solomon's death. until summoned by the tribes to be their leader. In any
case the repetition accords with Hebrew usage.]
BI 2-20, "When Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who was in Egypt heard of it . . . they sent
and called him.
The kingdom divided
1. This chapter reveals one of the turning-points in Israel’s history, for it is as true in
the history of Israel as in that of any other people that there are periods
comparatively insignificant, and hours as well, that are full of great events.
2. It had seemed to be one of the chief purposes of God to make Israel a great nation.
That is the promise made to Abram. The nation seems to have been essential to the
carrying out of God’s purpose in giving a revelation and establishing His kingdom in
the world. Truth does not gather momentum while it is propagated by an occasional
teacher or prophet. Great institutions, educational, civil, and religious, such as can
be developed only in a great nation, are necessary to make truth mighty, to give it
power among the masses, and that volume which sets it moving over wide areas. The
revelation, which had been sporadic in Israel throughout patriarchal times, now by
means of the great civil and religious institutions of Israel as a nation—prophecy and
the school of the prophets, the priesthood and the great religious festivals—gathers
momentum and moves grandly on toward the fulfilment of the promise made to
Abram.
3. But by this Scripture we are introduced to a condition of things that is startling.
The very chosen instrument essential to the carrying out of God’s purpose to bless
and save the world—the Israelitish nation—is threatened with destruction. There is
something violent in the very tones of the cry, “To your tents, O Israel.” Where now
is the nation through which God is to bless the world? Can His purpose be
accomplished by these fragments?
4. A study of the actual course of history among these tribes would show that there
were many natural causes leading to this division of the kingdom. Rehoboam was
weak and wicked. He who will rule others must first learn to rule himself. The young

men, probably sons of Solomon’s chief officers, who had been trained at the royal
court and were designed to be the officers of the succeeding king, had inherited the
bitter hostility that had long existed, especially between the tribes of Judah and
Ephraim; thinking themselves strong under the new king, they were ready to advise
and help to carry out rash measures. There was no lack of occasion for dissension on
the side of Rehoboam. On the other hand there can be little doubt that the taxes
exacted of Israel were oppressive. Ephraim had always been jealous of and restive
under Judah’s rule. “To the house of Joseph—that is to Ephraim, with its adjacent
tribes of Benjamin and Manasseh—had belonged all the chief rulers of Israel, down
to the time of David: Joshua, the conqueror; Deborah, the prophetess; Gideon, the
one regal spirit of the judges; Abimelech and Saul, the first kings; Samuel, the
restorer of the people after the fall of Shiloh. It was natural with such an inheritance
of glory that Ephraim always chafed under any rival supremacy.” And when “the
Lord refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose
the tribe of Judah,” the old jealousy was intensified and ready to burst forth on any
pretext. Jeroboam had once lifted up his hand against King Solomon, and Solomon
had attempted to kill him, and had driven him into Egypt. Weakness, wilfulness, and
impetuosity on the part of the king and his advisers, all of which served to intensify
an inherited jealousy of prerogative, were the influences at work on the one side. On
the other a powerful people fired with a sense of injustice, with a powerful,
ambitious, and unscrupulous leader—these certainly afforded causes for a disruption
deep and irremediable.
5. But the prophet expressly tells us that this division is of God.
6. What was the real cause? The record makes it plain, and reveals at the same time
God, the long suffering and the holy One. It was not that the king had fleeced them,
as Samuel a century earlier had told them he would (1Sa_8:11-17). It was that they
had rejected God, as God told Samuel they had, when they asked a king (1Sa_8:6-8).
What are the lessons to be learned?
1. God gives opportunities to individuals and to nations even though He knows that
they will not improve them. Jeroboam was justified in taking possession of the Ten
Tribes. It was part of the Divine plan. He had been so instructed. But Jeroboam
departed from God, and he has gone down in the sacred history as the man that
made Israel to sin. Rehoboam had his opportunity also both before and after the
division of the kingdom. He wasted it wickedly. Whether we use or abuse our
opportunities they come to us, and God with and in them all, to work out His
righteous will through us if we will, and, if not, to abandon us and to find a way for
His will and purposes through others.
2. We may learn also that, however essential an institution may seem to be for
carrying forward the purposes of God, if it fail it is doomed. The Israelitish nation, in
order to express the Divine will and be a revelation of Jehovah, must be conscious of
its dependence on Him. But this Israel had lost. There is no trace of the confidence or
of the sense of dependence that appears in the song of.Moses at the Red Sea. The
spiritual hold on Jehovah has relaxed.
3. God works in the actual condition of things. It is a mistake to suppose that God
must wait for either the ideal man or the ideal nation. The ambitious Jeroboam and
the weak Rehoboam are alike His agents. The revelation which shapes the conditions
under which the kingdom of God cannot flourish may be as important as that which
shows the conditions of its prosperity. “To your tents, O Israel: see to thine own

house, David,” is violent language. Jehovah will find other means for propagating
and perpetuating His truth. “The Arabian traditions relate that in the staff on which
Solomon leaned, and which supported him long after his death, there was a worm
which was secretly gnawing it asunder.” The worm—idolatry—has done its work. (B.
P. Raymond.)
The kingdom divided
God was in Israel’s history, but he is equally in all history. He guided Israel with a very
special purpose, yet no more truly or constantly than He guides us. If from the study of
this ancient record we learn to interpret our own lives and the lives of all men and all
nations in the spirit in which the sacred historian wrote of Israel and Judah, we shall
have learned its main lesson: God rules in this world of ours. He exalts one, casts down
another, and makes the very wrath of man to praise Him.
1. Israel’s secession “was from the Lord.” From terrible, relentless, persistent
tyranny, after due but vain remonstrance, subjects have a Divine right to free
themselves by revolution. “The powers that be are ordained of God,” but no
particular form of polity is so. Rulers exist for subjects, not subjects for rulers. The
government of a nation at any time presumably deserves respect and support; but it
may forfeit all claim to both by ceasing to fulfil its function as a blessing to the
people.
2. Observe the pusillanimity of pride. Pride seems a source of strength: it is rather a
source of weakness; it prevents one from acting according to his best light.
Rehoboam must in his first calm moment have felt convinced of the superior wisdom
of the course urged by the older counsellors. But the words of the younger men
appealed to his pride and momentarily blinded him to their folly.
3. Consider how expensive such senseless pride may become. It cost Rehoboam far
the best part of his dominions. Israel rather than Judah fills the chief place in the
history of the next few centuries. Henceforth until the fall of Samaria Israel is ever
upon the historian’s page. Judah occupying a subordinate place. The history of Israel
is that of a nation—Judah consisted of but a single great and splendid city.
Rehoboam’s pride was an expensive luxury—it cost him the richest jewels in his
crown.
4. Mark the peril of disregarding the wisdom of age. Had Rehoboam consulted only
his seniors, he would have taken the right course. This his pride forbade. Was he not
king? Old men, fogies, the Bismarcks and the Gladstones, had carried on the State
long enough. Like William of Germany, he would show what wonders fresh blood
and brain could do. Besides, was he not getting all the light he could inquiring of all
rather than of few? Many a youth has thus cheated himself into the belief that he was
proceeding with great prudence, when in fact he merely wished an excuse for some
darling folly.
5. Notice, that serving is the only way to win true fortunes. How numerous are the
applications of this principle in the household in the workshop, in society, in
government! If employers only treated their employees in this spirit, how it would
assuage the friction between the two, to the advantage of both! If labourers always
acted in this temper of love, what added strength it would assure to labouring men’s
organisations! How perfectly did the course of our Divine Lord and Saviour illustrate
this! He came to win the world. How was it to be done? Had He been a mere man, He

would never have sought to attain His end in the way He did. Instead of appearing as
a grand monarch, ministered unto, courted, and flattered, He came as a servant,
ministering ever unto others. Instead of being rich, He had not where to lay His
head. Instead of courting the great and wise, He sought the poor and lowly. And He
has in this world a Name which is above every name, at whose mention millions of
hearts rise and millions of heads bow in loving adoration. (J. B. G. Pidge, D. D.)
Revolt of the Ten Tribes
The son of Solomon began his reign with a blunder, assuming that the throne was his by
Divine right of succession and ignoring the ratification of the people. In this particular
he is a good type of many young men at the present day, who think they see in the wealth
and social position of their parents the claim to society’s unquestioning homage to
themselves. Real kinghood is personal. The true king, as Carlyle put it, is the canning—
the man who can. The endorsement of a wealthy parent may carry a son’s cheque; it will
not carry him. Society recognises drafts on personal deposits only. Rehoboam fancied
that the son of Solomon could pass to the throne unchallenged. Not so thought the
proud and jealous Ephraimites; not so thought nine other tribes: and the young
aspirant’s self-complacency was, rudely checked by the refusal of these tribes to come to
Jerusalem and pay him homage, by their summoning him to Shechem, the tribe-centre
of Ephraim, and by their meeting him there, not with submission, but with a bill of
rights. This very check was an opportunity for Rehoboam to show whether he was made
of true kingly stuff. The crisis which exposes a man’s mistake often develops his wisdom,
if he has any. The crisis proved him to be lacking in one of the prime qualifications of a
king. “He lived,” as one has remarked, “in a fool’s paradise, blind and deaf to what would
have arrested the attention of a sensible ruler. At any rate, the emergency was one which
he could not meet alone, and therefore he sought counsel. There are, however, different
motives for asking advice. That a man consults with others does not disprove his self-
conceit. Men often seek advice only to have their own opinion or their own course
confirmed, and consequently choose their advisers from among their sympathisers; and
a sympathiser is not, usually, the best adviser. Decency required that Rehoboam should
advise with the old counsellors of his father, but he evidently did so merely for
propriety’s sake. In the first place, the old counsellors clearly discerned the issue in
Rehoboam’s mind. It was between two ideals of sovereignty, the despotic and the
paternal. Should sovereignty mean being served or serving? Evidently, as the result
showed, Rehoboam’s ideal was the former. Christ rules more than Caesar because He
put Himself at the world’s service. The world’s real rulers are invariably those who have
served it. The world’s thought is that power absolves from obligation; Christ’s thought is
that power emphasises obligation. One of the most impressive pictures of history is that
of the young Edward the Black Prince of England, after the victory of Poitiers, serving
the captive king of France at table and soothing the mortification of defeat with praises
of his bravery and with kindly assurances; and the spirit of that scene is condensed into
his favourite motto interwoven with the faded ostrich-plumes about his tomb at
Canterbury, “Hen mout; Ich dien:” “High spirit; I serve.” Well says Dean Stanley, “To
unite in our lives the two qualities expressed in this motto—high spirit and reverent
service—is to be indeed not only a true gentleman and a true soldier, but a true Christian
also.” Liberty is essentially a social principle, and every social principle imposes
limitations on the individual. Love brings the two ideas of liberty and service into their
true relation. Love uses its free choice to choose service, and so makes service the very
highest expression of liberty. The young king could not appreciate this lofty ideal of

sovereignty. He could not read in service any higher meaning than servility. This advice
appealed to a packed jury. He wanted encouragement rather than counsel, and
therefore, having satisfied the proprieties of the occasion, he turned to another and more
congenial class of advisers, the young men that were grown up with him—young men as
proud, as shallow and as hot-headed as himself. There is nothing uncommon in chat. It
is a fact of our time no less than of Rehoboam’s—a fact that carries with it a strange
inconsistency, for one does not always nor often reject what is ripe. Crudeness, in most
eases, is a reproach. One wants ripe fruit on his table and seasoned timber for his house
or his carriage. One does not trust a law student with the management of a fortune, nor
put his child’s life into the hands of yesterday’s graduate in medicine. Youth seems to
prefer the route through the shoals and rocks to that through the open sea to which
ripened wisdom stands ready to direct it. Those shoals are strewn with wrecks. How few
escape! The Bible, it is to be noticed, will not let the old past entirely lose its hold upon
us. Enoch and Abraham and Moses appear as counsellors of the nineteenth century,
which in so many respects is far in advance of them; and for the reason that they
represent principles of life and character which are eternal. The consequences of
Rehoboam’s decision are familiar. We are indeed told that the cause was from the Lord,
and that the catastrophe came about in fulfilment of his promise to rend the kingdom
from Solomon’s house; but it was in Rehoboam’s power to have escaped all
responsibility for that terrible result. God’s decrees never relieve us of the duty of
obedience. And this is a fair ground of appeal. The popular proverb is profoundly true:
“A man is known by the company he keeps.” Only let us be sure and emphasise the last
word, “the company he keeps.” We keep only what we like. The man is not truthfully
indexed by the company in which he happens to be found at any particular time, not by
the accidental contact of society, not by the circle into which he may have dropped in
order to satisfy some conventional demand or to win some social prestige. That kind of
company he does not keep; he only touches it. (M. R. Vincent, D. D.)
Revolt of the Ten Tribes
The fault of the prince lay not in consulting younger men—for they are often most
favourable to progress—the error was in allowing his action, as a ruler, to be governed by
private considerations. The young man’s failing was a kingly one, but also a very
common one. The great landowner cannot see the advantage of yielding his game-
preserve to the uses of hard-worked tenants. The manufacturer does not frequently pay
the sowing-women he employs more than the market price for their labour. Power and
wealth men are as slow to give up as Pharaoh was the Israelite slaves.
I. An early illustration of an attempt to adjust difficulties by conference. Though the
people might not have remained for a long period loyal to the house of David, they made
an attempt to adjust the difficulties between them and their hereditary prince. They did
not go into open rebellion. They asked that their rights and their complaints might be
considered Kings who exercise despotic power, and their defenders, are wont to base
their claims on the authority of the Bible. As Englishmen, we point with pride to the
Barons at Runnymede as they demand the Great Charter from King John. This right of
petition, exercised by Israelites and Englishmen, is not one that has always been
conceded. Charles II. endeavoured to secure the passage of a bill limiting this right of his
subjects so late as 1680. In early Bible times we find free speech, free petition, and
methods of arbitration. This right of petition must be conceded before any adjustments
can he made between sovereigns and their subjects, or between men and their fellows.
We must be willing to hear men’s causes and defence, before any result can be obtained

that will be satisfactory. Before conference can begin, there must be this openness of
discussion. There is one phase of this matter that is very practical. Do we not often
condemn persons before giving them any opportunity to explain their action? We nurse
fancied wrongs and bear ill-will toward those who ought to be dear to us. Have we ever
told them of our grievances? Are we sure they are aware of fault or sin? We say too often,
“Let them find out for themselves.” Thus friends are alienated and homes made
unhappy. Christ emphasised the adjustments of wrongs between men as individuals. In
the Old Testament, we have the same duty enforced by example and precept. We have,
also, an illustration of a proper method of righting public wrongs. This lesson is for
labourers and capitalists, for servants and masters, as well as for kinsfolk and friends.
II. The inevitable transfer of power from him who serveth not, to him who will, serve the
interests of others. The power of the house of the beloved David must be diminished
when his descendants no longer served the people. Jeroboam, the rival claimant for the
throne, was a man of few good qualities, but he professed to be willing to serve the
people. He certainly attempted to please them, though he finally degraded them, as is
seen in the subsequent chapter. Even into the hands of demagogues, power will often
pass, with God’s permission, from selfish and despotic princes. God calls the world to
witness the humiliation of greatness that is supported by injustice. There is continually a
redistribution of power and wealth that goes on in the world with the Divine sanction.
Where men may gamble and become suddenly rich, they may as suddenly lose their
wealth. A house or family founded on unrighteousness has in it the elements of its own
destruction. Drink may ruin the son of the millionaire. His wealth goes to strangers.
Often the transfer of power is sudden, and proud men in their own lifetime behold their
sceptre “wrenched by an unlineal hand, no son of theirs succeeding.” Power that has not
lifted the world’s burdens will pass.
III. Great revolutions may take place under God’s guidance without violence. We are
told that this revolt was of the Lord. The people failed in their conference, but they
succeeded in accomplishing a great change quietly. They had begun right to end well.
Thenceforth the cause was in God’s hands. Prayer is one of the means by which great
changes are accomplished silently. God is always on the side of the earnest prayer, and
any good that results is from Him. The history of the revolutions wrought by prayer
must remain unwritten till the great day of revelation. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Tribal causes of schism
The first cause of the schism to be noted, from the human point of view, was the deep
cleft between the northern and southern tribes. It arose from geographical and
economical differences, accentuated probably by longstanding tribal jealousies. From
the days of Deborah, at latest, the cleft had been visible, and the unity which had been
achieved, largely under the pressure of the Philistine wars, that crushed the loose
organisation into a more compact whole for self-preservation, and held the kingdom
together under Saul and David, would have been hard to keep up, even with skilful and
beneficent kingship. Both America and England know how deep the gulf between
“North” and “South” may be, and how hard it is to cast the encircling bond of a common
nationality round them. England and Scotland are not perfectly fused together even now,
and there are other broad lines of separation than “the colour line” on the other side of
the Atlantic. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

1 kings 12 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 1 kings 12 commentary

Similar to 1 kings 12 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

1 kings 12 commentary