1 Kings 12:30

The Sin of Jeroboam.

What was this sin, of which, from this time forward, the historian has so much to say? It is mentioned more than twenty times in Scripture. It casts its dark shadow across fifteen reigns of the kings of Israel. Its baleful influences were felt for more than two and a half centuries. It was the prime cause ( 2 Kings 17:21-28 ) of that captivity from which the ten tribes have never returned. Surely we ought to know what it was. And as one help to a right conclusion, let us first clearly understand what it was not.

I. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF REBELLION . There may have been sin in the way which the rupture with Judah was brought about (see 2 Chronicles 13:6 , 2 Chronicles 13:7 ), though that is by no means certain (notes on 1 Kings 12:19 , 1 Kings 12:20 ). But even if Israel was set upon rebellion, and even if Jeroboam had rudely and wickedly precipitated the revolt, that cannot be "the sin" of which he is here and elsewhere accused. For, in the first place, later kings could not be held responsible for Jeroboam's conduct at the time of the disruption, i.e; they could not commit that sin of Jeroboam; and, secondly, the disruption itself was ordained of God ( 1 Kings 11:31 sqq.; 1 Kings 12:15 ; 2 Chronicles 11:4 ). 1 Kings 12:15 , too, is decisive. "The cause was from the Lord." Those who sate on Jeroboam's throne, consequently, no less than the successors of Solomon, reigned de jure Divino . The former equally with the latter were the anointed of Heaven ( 2 Kings 9:3 , 2 Kings 9:6 ). It was the Lord "raised up" ( 1 Kings 14:14 ) Baasha ( 1 Kings 15:28 , 1 Kings 15:29 ), Zimri ( 1 Kings 16:12 ), Jehu ( 2 Kings 9:6 ), and the rest.

II. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF GOING AFTER OTHER GODS . If this were the sin referred to here it would probably have been called "the sin of Solomon," for Solomon is twice charged with that sin ( 1 Kings 11:4 , 1 Kings 11:10 ), whereas Jeroboam never went after Baal, or Ashtoreth, or Milcom. It is true the calves are once called "other gods" ( 1 Kings 14:9 ), but they are only so called in derision, and in 1 Kings 16:31 the sin of Jeroboam is expressly distinguished from the worship of other gods. It was probably Jeroboam's boast (see note on 1 Kings 16:28 ), not that he was instituting a new religion, or setting up a rival Deity, but that he was worshipping the one true God in a more rational and primitive way. See Jos; Ant. 8. 8.4. And that the calf. worship was not idolatry, properly so called, is clear from this consideration, that "the sin of Jeroboam" is confined to the kingdom of Israel. Not one of the kings of Judah is ever taxed with it. And yet it was in Judah, and not in Israel, that idolatry prevailed. Of the kings of Israel, only Ahab and his two sons were guilty of idolatry; whereas of the kings of Judah only five set their faces against it. Yet the non-idolatrous kings of Israel are constantly charged with Jeroboam's sin, and the idolatrous kings of Judah never. Polytheism, therefore, it cannot have been.

III. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF IMAGE WORSHIP . The calves were not made to be worshipped, any more than the cherubim of Solomon's temple. Nor do we read that they received Divine worship. "The people went to worship before the one ," etc. The Scripture, it is true, calls them "molten images," but Jeroboam doubtless said they were symbols of the heavenly powers, designed (like the images of the Roman Communion) to be helps to devotion, and they are nowhere called "idols," or "horrors," or "statues." We entirely misconceive Jeroboam's purpose, and discredit his sagacity, if we think that he had the worship of Apis or Mnevis or any similar idol in his mind. The last thing that would occur to him would be to set up a purely pagan system amongst such a people as the Jews. His was not the sin of idol worship. What, then, was it?

I. IT WAS THE SIN OF HERESY . For "heresy" in the original meaning of the word simply implied an arbitrary selection of doctrines or practices— αἵρεσις = a choosing— instead of dutifully accepting those which God has enjoined. This is precisely what Jeroboam did. Instead of taking and handing down to his successors, whole and undefiled, the "faith once delivered," he presumed to modify it; to adapt it, as he thought, to the new order of things, etc. His heresy was threefold.

1. He chose his own places of worship . God had ordained that there should be one sanctuary for the whole nation. Both the law of Moses and the history of Israel alike taught that the religious centre of the nation should be one. From an early age it was predicted that God would choose Himself a place to put His name there ( Deuteronomy 12:13 , Deuteronomy 12:14 ; Deuteronomy 14:23 ). And this Divine choice had been recently and unmistakably made. He "chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved." And He built His "sanctuary," etc. ( Psalms 78:67-69 ; cf. Psalms 132:18 , Psalms 132:14 ). At the dedication of this sanctuary this choice had been publicly proclaimed ( 1 Kings 8:10 , 1 Kings 8:11 ; 2 Chronicles 7:2 , 2 Chronicles 7:12 , 2 Chronicles 7:16 ). The whole nation then understood that God had "chosen Jerusalem to put His name there." And Jeroboam was aware of this, and was also aware that the division of the kingdom was to make no difference as to the oneness or the position of the sanctuary. To prevent misconception he was twice reminded in the message of Ahijah, his charter to the crown, that Jerusalem was "the city which God had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel" ( 1 Kings 11:32 , 1 Kings 11:33 ). It was to be in the future, as it had been in the past, the one place of incense and sacrifice. And that Jeroboam knew it, his own thoughts ( 1 Kings 12:26 , 1 Kings 12:27 ) reveal to us. "If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem ." He is quite clear, then—indeed, he could not be otherwise—as to the place of God's choice. But that place, he argues, will not do for him. Political considerations demand that he shall find a religious centre elsewhere. So he "takes counsel," and decrees ex mero arbitrio that Israel shall have three holy places instead of one, and that Bethel and Dan shall henceforward divide the honours hitherto enjoyed by Jerusalem.

2. He chose his own modes of worship . Though the way in which God should be approached had been prescribed, though every detail of the Divine service had been ordered beforehand, and though he had been warned against adding aught to it or diminishing aught from it ( Deuteronomy 4:2 ; Deuteronomy 12:1-32 :382), yet he decided otherwise. Perhaps he persuaded himself that he had good reasons for it; but all the same he chose otherwise than God had chosen. Though Exodus 20:4 , etc; forbade the making of graven images, yet he "made molten images" ( 1 Kings 14:9 ). Though the law decreed that the sons of Aaron alone should offer sacrifice and burn incense, yet he determined to play the priest himself, and also "made him priests of the lowest of the people." Sic volo, sic jubeo, etc.

3. He chose his own times of worship . Nothing could have been more positively fixed than the date of the Feast of the Tabernacles. It was to be "the fifteenth day of the seventh month" (Le 23:34, 39). But this was not the day of Jeroboam's "choice." He "devised" a month "of his own heart;" he consulted, perhaps he thought, his people's convenience; but was there ever heretic yet that was not full of arguments, when all God asks is obedience?

"In religion

What dangerous error, but some sober brow

Will bless it and approve it with a text,

Hiding the grossness with fair ornament."

II. IT WAS THE SIN OF SCHISM . It is not without reason that in the Litany heresy and schism are coupled together, for the latter springs out of the former. Jeroboam's arbitrary choice led to a division in the Jewish Church. Let us briefly consider in what way the breach in the national unity, hitherto so close and conspicuous, was effected.

1. The one centre of unity gave place to three centres of division . Hitherto, three times a year (cf. 1 Kings 9:25 ) all the males of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, had gathered round one altar. Thither, "the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord." Now, instead of going, even from Dan, the people went to worship before the calves "even unto Daniel " The ten tribes turned their backs on Jerusalem, and sought, some of them, a sanctuary at the opposite point of the compass. Nor did those who worshipped at Bethel afford a less striking proof of disintegration, for that sanctuary was within sight of the temple mount. The two pillars of smoke ascending day by day from rival altars, but twelve miles apart, proclaimed to all that there was a "schism in the body."

2. The one priesthood of Aaron shared its ministry with the priests of Jeroboam . No longer were offerings brought exclusively to the sons of Levi, but "whosoever would" might burn the incense and sprinkle the blood. The schism was accentuated by the appointment of a new order of men, with vested interests in the perpetuation of division.

3. The one ritual of Divine obligation was travestied by rites and ceremonies of human appointment . If the breach was widened by the intrusive priesthood, it was deepened by the unauthorized and forbidden cultus of the calves. The stranger, who came out of a far country for God's name's sake ( 1 Kings 8:41 , 1 Kings 8:42 ), to pray toward the house, found himself in the presence of rival systems, each claiming to be primitive and true, but differing so widely that he would go home to his own land, doubting whether both were not false. He would say, as others have said since, that before men compassed sea and land to make proselytes, they had better agree among themselves.

4. The one Feast of Tabernacles appointed of God was parodied by a Feast devised of man . That feast, the most joyous of the year, had once been the greatest manifestation of religious unity which Israel afforded. It was the very "dissidence of dissent" when the feast of the seventh month was straightway and ostentatiously followed by a feast of the eighth month, celebrated but a few miles distant. It was the culminating proof of διχο — στασία .

III. THE SIN OF KORAH ( Numbers 16:1-50 .) This has been already twice referred to, as a part of the heresy and as a factor in the schism. But it may well stand by itself as a substantive part of the sin. It was just as great a violation of the Divine law to use the ministry of unauthorized persons as to worship at shrines of man's choosing or with ordinances of man's devising.

This, then, was "the sin of Jeroboam." It was not rebellion, not idolatry, but the worship of the true God in unauthorized places, with unauthorized rites, and by unauthorized ministers. Nor did it make it less a sin that it seemed to prosper. The church of Jeroboam straightway became the church of the majority. At the time of the captivity it could boast of some antiquity ( 18:30 ; 2 Kings 17:16 ). But all the same God put His brand upon it. Three miracles ( 1 Kings 13:1-34 .) were wrought as a testimony against it. The voices of the prophets were raised to condemn it (Hosea , passim ; Micah 6:16 , etc.) But from year to year and reign to reign it flourished, and bore its baleful fruit, and then, after the schism had lasted two hundred and fifty years, while the kingdom of Judah, despite its idolatries, still retained for 185 years longer its place in the covenant land, the ten tribes were carried away to the cities of the Medes, were "scattered beyond the river" and disappeared from the page of history.

And has this sin no lessons? has its punishment no warnings for ourselves? If, as some seem to think, we may pick and choose our doctrines at pleasure; if the Scripture is of private interpretation; if we are at liberty each one to set up his own dogmas against the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of the Catholic Church; or if there is no such thing as schism: if it is never mentioned or never reprobated in the New Testament; if the Babel of sects—there are over one hundred of them in this England of ours—is according to the plan and purpose of our Lord; or if, again, the "form of sound words," the depositum fidei, the creeds of the undivided Church, have no authority: if they can be added to by the autocrat of Rome, or diminished from by any state, or sect, or teacher; or, finally, if there is no such thing as a "mission" of Christ's ministers; if any man may take this honour to himself; if those who have never been sent themselves may nevertheless send others—then this history is void of all meaning. But if, on the other hand, Christianity is the child of Judaism, and the Christian Church the inheritor of the principles of the Jewish; if that church is One and Catholic and Apostolic; if the faith was once for all ( ἅπαξ ) delivered to the saints; if our Lord Christ sent His apostles even as the Father had seat Him ( John 20:21 ), if they in turn "ordained elders in every city" ( Titus 1:5 ; cf. 2 Timothy 2:2 ), and by laying on of hands ( Acts 13:8 ); if the tactual succession is not a mere piece of priestly assumption—then assuredly the history of Jeroboam's sin is full of meaning, and "very necessary for these times." And the prominence accorded to it in Scripture, the twenty references to its working—we can understand it all when we remember that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," and that the Spirit that moved the prophets foresaw the manifold heresies and schisms of Christendom.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD