1 Kings 12:13-15

Judicial Infatuation.

It is impossible to read this history of the great rebellion, even at the present day, without a certain feeling of sadness. We see here a young prince, heir to one of the greatest empires of antiquity, the inheritor of an illustrious and unequalled name, with all the advantages which the glory and greatness of his father could give him, reaping the benefits of a long peace, his coffers full of money, his cities filled with all manner of store, his fleets ploughing the sea, his army guarding his frontier; we see him wantonly flinging these singular advantages away from him, and absolutely courting his own destruction and the dismemberment of his kingdom. We see a position which has had but few, if any, parallels recklessly sacrificed for the lack of a few conciliatory words. It needed but the slenderest modicum of common sense and all would have gone well. He had but to stoop for one day in order to conquer forever ( 1 Kings 12:7 ). But no; we hear him instead hurling opprobrious words at the spokesmen of the ten tribes, and forthwith the land is ablaze with insurrection. He madly talks of the might of his little finger, of whips and scorpions, and from that hour his kingdom is divided; the holy people are ranged under hostile banners, and the way is opened for the schism in the Church. We talk sometimes of men who dance on the edge of a volcano, and we have read of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning, but it may be questioned whether history affords a more pitiable instance of folly and infatuation than this. And it was such infatuation that we can hardly resist the conclusion that it was, somehow, retributive and judicial. "Who would not have looked any whither for the cause of this evil, rather than to heaven? Yet the holy God challenges it to Himself" (Bp. Hall). "The cause was from the Lord."

It is well that we should understand, however, that this gross infatuation was only one out of many factors which produced the disruption. The division of the kingdom—the first act in the long drama of retribution for the sin of Solomon—was to a large extent the natural result of the rule and policy of Solomon. No doubt of all the causes of revolt the prophecy of Ahijah was the most influential. It was that "beginning" which, as Aristotle sagely remarks, is often the larger half. Possibly but for that, Israel's "winter of discontent" would have been "made glorious by the summer sun" of the accession of a young prince. Probably but for that, Jeroboam would never have "lifted up his hand against the king." But we must not shut our eyes to the fact that the people had had a "heavy yoke" to hear. Rehoboam himself confessed to this ( 1 Kings 12:14 ). It is idle to say that their demands betray a foregone conclusion to revolt. The contrary is distinctly implied in 1 Kings 12:4 , 1 Kings 12:7 . Nor is it the fact that the rebellion was wholly due to the jealousy of Ephraim, for that proud tribe had readily acquiesced in the supremacy of Judah during the reign of David. Indeed, the rebellion is almost inexplicable, except on the supposition that, the people had suffered real hardships, and carried heavy burdens during Solomon s reign. Men do not soon forget the glories of such an empire as his, and do not wantonly tear it asunder, and reduce it to impotence, unless they have had substantial grievances. But in this case, so many were their grounds of disaffection that, remembering that Jeroboam, who no doubt appeared to them in the light of a champion and tribune of the people, was in reserve, should they need his services, it only needed the infatuation of Rehoboam to kindle the smouldering embers of discontent into a flame.

And when we see in this inconceivable infatuation the immediate cause of the disruption, we must still remember how it was that Rehoboam came to be capable of such egregious folly. Are we to suppose that he was expressly blinded for the occasion? Is it implied that, like Saul, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him, or that, like Ahab, he was the victim of heaven-sent delusions? Is it not rather enough to believe that he was simply left to himself, to be the sport of his own folly and pride? His infatuation would still be judicial, if we saw in it, not the strange perversity of a moment, but the spontaneous outcome of his birth and education. Indeed, in that case, it would be still more conspicuously the just and appropriate retribution for his father's sin. It was because of Solomon's foreign wives, and the idolatries which, with his sanction, they practised, that Solomon's empire was to be torn from his son ( 1 Kings 11:33 ). And now we find that the dismemberment of this empire was brought about by the son of one of these strange women—the child of an unregenerate Ammonitess. It has been said that "every great man is the son of his mother." £ The same remark might be made of every great fool. It was probably because Naamah was what she was that Rehoboam was what he was. "The two worst men in my parish," said a clergyman, "are what their mothers have made them." We could not expect much character, not to speak of wisdom, in Solomon's mistresses, who were chosen for their charms, and whoso cloistered life, amid the intrigues, and follies, and pettinesses of the harem, did not fit them to be the mothers of kings. What knowledge of the world or of men, what honour, what common sense could we hope to find in one brought up under such influences? The hearing of Rehoboam is precisely the bearing we should expect as the result of the training of an Eastern harem. It appears, consequently, that we may justly regard his infatuation as judicial, not so much in the sense of being inspired for the moment, but as being the natural consequence of his parents' folly and sin. But let us now consider what shape this same infatuation took: let us separate it into its constituent parts, that we may the better understand Rehoboam's character, and see the workings of his mind. Observe—

I. HIS ENTIRE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF DANGER . There were not wanting, to those who could read the signs of the times, many indications of peril. It was a "significant hint" that Shechem had been selected for his coronation; that the tribes insisted on a conference; that instead of acclamations he was met with stipulations. It was a presage of danger that their first words to Solomon's son, to David's grandson, were of a "heavy yoke" and a grievous burden. It was still more ominous that Jeroboam had already raised the standard of revolt, and that this arch rebel—according to the received text, but see on 1 Kings 12:3 , 1 Kings 12:20 —was present among the malcontents. Even if he had not at that time been recalled from Egypt, still Rehoboam knew full well that he was there, and ready to rebel again if opportunity offered. All these were mutterings of the coming storm, and no one who was not a fool could have failed to perceive their import.

II. HIS VACILLATION AND IRRESOLUTION . Bishop Hall observes that his stipulating top three days in which to consider their demand was the only word he spoke which argued wisdom. Matthew Henry, on the other hand, thinks that it was "impolitic to take time to consider," and it may well be doubted whether this was not really a false and dangerous move. Had he bluntly refused all concessions and laid hands on the ringleaders, it is very probable that such a display of energy would have quelled the spirit of insurrection. Or had he graciously and instantly promised a redress of their grievances, he would have preserved his crown. But this delay was dangerous. It set them a-thinking what they would do in case of a refusal. A Fabian policy has saved some states, no doubt; but how many has it destroyed? And if, as has been suggested (on verse 5), the object of the three days' delay was that he might summon his young companions to his side, its unwisdom is still more apparent.

III. HIS PRIDE AND OBSTINACY . It was pride, not mental incapacity, led him to reject the counsel of the old men and seek for further advice. It was because it went against the grain to be a "servant," even for one day. That they should have presumed to ask concessions, or to parley with him at all, was an offence in his eyes. It is easy to read his vexation between the lines. With his high-flown notions of Divine right, with the characteristic contempt of an autocrat for the masses, it was mortifying to find his subjects bandying words with him. We may be pretty sure that, had the old men advised "whips of scorpions," etc; we should have heard of no further consultation. The pride of Solomon and the pretensions of Naamah reappear in their son.

IV. HIS FOLLY . This, which is conspicuous all the way through, is especially manifest in

We might also instance the threats to which he stooped, and the mission of Adoram, but these come more appropriately under—

V. HIS INSOLENCE AND DEFIANCE . Had he wished to provoke a rebellion, he could not have taken more effectual means to secure the end. "I will add to your yoke." "I will chastise you with scorpions." What cry could he possibly expect in return, except a war cry, such as he presently heard? If he had meant to punish, he should surely have held his tongue and used his hands. To boast of what he would do is like the Chinese warrior, who thinks to disperse his enemies by a ferocious shout. And to send Adoram, not to make overtures of peace—Rehoboam's folly would hardly go so far as to select him for such a mission—but, as it would seem, to collect tribute or to make a show of his authority, why, if he had designed to make the breach irreparable, and to stamp out the last faint hope of reconciliation, he could not have done more. It was the act of a spoilt child, it was the coming out in the flesh of what was bred in the bone.

Amongst the lessons this history teaches are these:

"A pebble in the streamlet's source,

Hath turned the course of many a river;

A dewdrop on the baby plant,

Hath warped the giant oak forever."

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD