'Then Jeroboam built Shechera in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and
went out from thence, and built Penuel. 26. And Jeroboam said in his
heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: 27. 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. 28. 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
the land of Egypt. 29. And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put
he in Dan. 30. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to
worship before the one, even unto Dan. 31. And he made an house of high
places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of
the sons of Levi. 32. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth
month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is
in Judah; and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Beth-el,
sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed In Beth-el
the priests of the high places which he had made. 33. So he offered
upon the altar which he had made in Beth-el the fifteenth day of the
eighth month, even in the 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 xii. 25-33
The details of this section need no long elucidation; for the one fact
which it records, namely, the establishment of the calf worship in
Israel, is the main point to consider. As for details, we need touch
them lightly. The 'building' of Shechem and Penuel is probably to be
understood as 'fortifying'; for, in regard to the former town, we know
from the preceding section that it _was_ a town before the disruption,
and the same is probably true of the latter. Two fortresses, one in the
heart of his kingdom, one on the eastern border, where attack might be
expected, were Jeroboam's first care.
In estimating his conduct, the fact must be remembered that Ahijah had
promised him God's protection and the establishment of his kingdom in
his family, on the sole condition of obedience. If he had believed the
prophet, something else than building strongholds would have been his
prime aim. But he evidently thought that promises were all very well,
but thick walls were better. The two things recorded of him are quite
of a piece; and the writer seems, by putting them thus side by side, to
wish us to note their identity of motive and similarity in character.
The establishment of the calf worship was entirely due, according to
this historian, to dread that religious unity would heal the schism of
political duality, and that Jeroboam's kingdom and life would be
sacrificed to the magnetism which would draw the revolted northern
tribes back to render allegiance, where they went up to worship. The
calculation was reasonable: but why, in estimating chances, did
Jeroboam leave out God's promise? That should have kept him at ease.
The calves and the castles were signs of fear and of slight regard to
the prophet's word. No doubt, when it suited him, he could vindicate
rebellion on the plea of obeying God. The plea would have sounded more
genuine if he had shown that he trusted God.
The calves were probably suggested by his Egyptian experiences, where
he had seen sacred bulls worshipped living, and mummied dead. But the
remembrance of Aaron and the golden calf was evidently present to him,
as the almost verbal quotation of Aaron's words shows. If so, the whole
transaction is still more accentuated as a revolt against the ritual of
the central sanctuary. 'The much-calumniated Aaron is our example. He
was mastered by his brother, but he was right, and we go back to the
old original worship of our fathers.'
Jeroboam was among the first to employ the expedient, so often resorted
to since, of white-washing old-world criminals, in order to provide an
ancestry for modern heresies. The calves seem to have been doubled
simply as a matter of convenience. When once the principle of saving
trouble comes in, in religion, it generally plays a great part. If it
were too much to go to Jerusalem, it would soon be too much to go to
Bethel, and so Dan must be provided for the north. The calves were
symbols of Jehovah, not of other gods, as must be carefully noted. The
making of them implied all that followed; for a god must have shrine
and priesthood and sacrifice and festivals. The Levites refusing to
serve, and probably losing their inheritance, fled to Judah, and a new
priesthood was made 'from among all the people' (Rev. Ver.), The Feast
of Tabernacles was retained but its date shifted forward a month,
perhaps because the harvest, which it closed, was later in the north,
but evidently with the design of, as it were, underscoring the
religious separation.
The latter part of this passage should perhaps be attached more closely
to the next chapter, and understood as describing the one instance of
Jeroboam's sacrificing which was so grimly interrupted by the
denunciation by the anonymous prophet from Judah. Such are the outlines
of the facts. What are the lessons taught by them?
I. There is that one already mentioned,--the folly and sin of seeking
to help God to fulfil His promises by our poor efforts at making their
fulfilment sure to sense. No doubt many of His promises are contingent
on our activity in material things; and no man has a right to expect
that' his bread shall be given him,' for instance, unless he
contributes the 'sweat of his brow' towards it. But Jeroboam had had
the conditions of safety and stability clearly laid down. They were,
obedience after the pattern of David (1 Kings xi. 38). So there was no
need for building Shechem and Penuel, nor for casting calves and
serving them. The heavens will stand without our rearing brickwork
pillars to hold them up. But it takes much faith to trust God's bare
word, and we are all apt to feel safer if we have something for sense
to grasp. On the open plain, God guards those who trust Him more
securely than if they lay in cities 'fenced up to heaven. 'Jerusalem
shall be inhabited as towns without walls. ... For I, saith the Lord,
will be unto her a wall of fire round about.'
II. Another lesson taught here is the sin of degrading religion to be a
mere instrument for securing personal ends. Jeroboam has had many
followers among politicians, The average 'statesman' looks on all
religions as equally true or untrue, and is ready to be polite to any
of them, if he can carry his measures thereby. The long history of the
relations of Church and State in the Old World has been little else
than the State's hiring and muzzling the Church for its own advantage,
and the protests of a faithful few against the degradation of State
patronage and consequent control.
In England, Jeroboam and his calves used to be the favourite shocking
example of the sin of schism, with which High Church orators were fond
of pelting Nonconformists. The true lesson from him and them is
precisely the opposite one; namely, the weakening of religion, when it
is favoured and endowed by the civil power. The priests of Bethel, who
were the creatures of Jeroboam, were not likely to be his or his
successors rebukers. When Amos the prophet spoke bold words against a
king, it was Amaziah the priest who gave the shameful counsel, 'O thou
seer, flee into the land of Judah, and prophesy there; but prophesy no
more at Bethel: for it is the king's sanctuary.' Is there no such thing
known as a flaming profession of religion, because it is respectable,
or opens the way to some good position? Does nobody pose in public,
especially about election times, as a liberal supporter of Churches and
a devout Church-member, with an eye mainly to votes? Do political
parties think it a good thing to get the religious people to go for
their ticket? Or, to take less base instances, is there not a whole
school who estimate Christianity mainly as valuable as a social force,
and, without any deep personal recognition of its loftier aspects,
think it well that it should be generally accepted, especially by other
people, as it makes them easier to govern, and cements the social
fabric?
Christianity is something more than social cement. Jeroboam's policy
was a great success, as policy. It both united his kingdom and
definitively separated it from Judah. But it was a success purchased at
the price of degrading religion into the lackey of a court. Samson went
to sleep on Delilah's lap, and she cut off the clustering locks in
which his strength lay.
III. The true nature of idolatry is brought out in the incident.
Jeroboam did not draw Israel away to worship other gods. No charge of
that sort is ever made against the calf worship. The images were meant,
just as Aaron's, of which they were a reproduction, was meant, to be
symbols of Jehovah. The true object of worship was worshipped in a
false way. No matter though the image represented Him, its worship was
idol worship. There is no ground in the narrative for the surmise of
Stanley,--who in this, as usual, simply says ditto to Ewald,--that
Jeroboam's motive was the desire to prevent Israel's adopting false
gods, and that the calves were a compromise by which he hoped to stem
the tide of apostasy to Baal worship. The single motive stated in the
text is policy inspired by fear. Jeroboam did not care enough about the
worship of Jehovah to mould his statecraft with the view of conserving
it. If he had so cared, he could not have set up the calves. His doing
so is uniformly regarded in Scripture as idolatry pure and simple; and
though it is clearly distinguished from the worship of false gods, it
is none the less branded as rebellion against Jehovah.
A visible representation of Jehovah was as much an idol as a similar
one of Baal would have been. It necessarily degraded the conception of
Him. It brought sense into dangerous prominence as an aid to worship.
The symbol might at first, and to the more devout, be a mere symbol,
and transparent; but it would soon become opaque, and from symbol turn
embodiment, and thence pass to being the very deity represented. It is
a feat of abstraction impossible for the ordinary man, to worship
before an idol, and not to worship the idol. The strange, awful
fascination which idolatry exercised is perhaps gone now from the
civilised world. But the lesson remains ever in season, that it is
dangerous work to bring in sense as an ally of devotion, because
outward things, which at first may be only symbols and helps, are
almost certain to become something more.
IV. Jeroboam may stand, finally, as a type of the men who suppose
themselves to be worshipping God when they are only following their own
wills. All his ceremonial had this damning characteristic, that it was
'devised of his own heart'; and so it was himself that was enshrined in
his new house of the high places, and himself to whom the sacrifices
were offered. Absolute obedience to God's will, whatever perils may
seem to attend it, is true worship. Wherever apparent devotion to Him
is mingled with burning incense to our own net, the mixture ruins the
devotion. 'Obedience is better than sacrifice.' Temptations to take our
own way will often appear as the dictates of sound policy, and to
neglect them as culpable carelessness. But such paltering with plain
commandments is as ruinous as sinful, and is not to be atoned for by
outward worship.
What did Jeroboam win by his intrusion of self-will into the region
which ought to be sacred to perfect obedience? A troubled reign and the
destruction of his house after one generation. One more thing he won;
namely, that terrible epithet, which becomes almost a part of his name,
'Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.' What a title to
be branded on a man's forehead for ever! It is always a mistake to
disobey God. Every sin is a blunder as well as a crime. This only is
the safe motto for churches and individuals, in all the details of
worship and of life: 'Lo, I come to do Thy will, O Lord, and Thy law is
within my heart.'