39. § 1. Rehoboam and Jeroboam
§ 1. Rehoboam and Jeroboam The punishment with which Solomon had been threatened was fulfilled soon after his death. And if these punishments fell upon the people also, they had the less cause to complain, since they had taken part in the apostasy of Solomon; they, not less than he, had succumbed to the temptations incident to a long time of peace. We see how low they had fallen under the reign of Solomon, from the fact that Jeroboam could venture to introduce the worship of calves without finding universal opposition. The states which show themselves so zealous in a political aspect, here show perfect indifference. The opposition is not national, but only proceeds from a small, God-fearing community. The punishment was a heavy one. Not only were their best powers diffused by the separation of the kingdom, but they were destroyed in bloody internal wars. The subjugation of Israel was now an easy matter for the great rising Asiatic world-empires: the weakness of the Israelites increased with the power of their enemies. It lay in the plan of the divine providence to abandon them to oppression, to lead them to repentance through the school of misery. The separation of the two kingdoms also in a great measure involved the loss of the other acquisitions which had been made under the reign of David and Solomon, of prosperity and higher culture. But the loss was accompanied by gain. The faith of the elect grew strong in the struggle with despair, which was so powerfully called forth by the visible. Opposition to the ever-increasing corruption enhanced the zeal of the pious, and developed their gifts. Among the better, the Messianic hope became more and more a central-point. Necessity drew them to the future Redeemer. The wonderful deliverances vouchsafed to the people when they cried to God in urgent need, such as those under Jehoshaphat and under Hezekiah, called forth a mighty working of the Spirit among the whole nation. The separation of the kingdom surrendered the ground which had given birth to the prophethood, so important for the Church at all times. And the long series of psalms characteristic of the struggle of despair with faith, in which the Church of all times has one of its noblest treasures, would never have existed had it not been for the disorder called forth by the separation of the kingdoms, which gave the death-blow to the greatness of Israel. The object of the prediction of the separation of the kingdom made by the prophet Ahijah, was that it might not be attributed to accident, but that the co-operation of a divine causality might be recognised, and that by this acknowledgment the attainment of its object might be promoted. The supremacy could not be quite taken away from the family of David, as it was from so many rulers in the later kingdom of Israel. This would have been inconsistent with the promise given to David in 2 Samuel 7, which demanded even more. According to it, the separation of the kingdom could only be temporary, for it promised the tribe of David the supremacy over Israel, though pointing to the interruptions due to sin. Hence the prophet Ahijah only declared the temporary separation. “I will for this afflict the seed of David,” says the Lord in 1 Kings 11:39, “but not for ever,”—a saying which has found its perfect fulfilment in Christ.
We have now considered the separation of the kingdom in so far as it was the result of a divine causality. But this mode of consideration must be regarded as quite distinct from a merely human one. From the latter standpoint the separation appears as a result of the battle of sin against sin.
Solomon was succeeded by Rehoboam, who was at once recognised as king by the tribe of Judah. But the ten tribes assembled in their delegates at Sichem, under the mere pretext of making him king there, having the secret intention of dethroning him. This intention already appeared from the choice of the place of assembling. Sichem was the principal city of the tribe of Ephraim. They thought they could act more freely there than at Jerusalem, where Solomon had been made king. Jeroboam, the type of all modern demagogues, was active in the matter from the beginning. Apparently they desired nothing further than a lightening of the burdens which Solomon had laid upon the nation; and there seems to have been justice in this demand. Solomon, who was never a man of the people as his father had been, had oppressed the nation toward the end of his reign by his excessive expenditure and his despotic rule. Rehoboam might therefore readily have promised to lighten their burdens, the more so since those who made the demand were not an assembled mob, but the legal representatives of the nation. We have already seen that kingly power among the Israelites was not absolute even in a political aspect,—that the king was restrained not only by the law of God, and by the ordinary and extraordinary servants, the priests and the prophets, who had been appointed for its administration, but also by the states, whose origin dated from the beginning of the nation, which were older than the kingdom, which had been first called into existence by them, and whose rights he had as little power to trample upon as they on his. Hence the answer which the king gave by the advice of his imprudent friends is most strongly to be condemned, especially on account of the mocking, disagreeable way in which it was put. “My little finger,” he said, “shall be thicker than my father’s loins. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” It is generally supposed that scorpions here mean scourges; but the usual meaning of the word is quite applicable here. Scorpions, the evil, poisonous reptile, are an image of the most severe measures. In these words we hear no “king by the grace of God,” who, conscious of the similar origin of his rights and his duties, is equally mindful of both, but an overbearing despot, who imagines he can easily become master of the people by the help of his warriors. This does not, however, by any means justify the conduct of the people. First of all, we must bear in mind that their demand was in all probability nothing more than a pretext; that they would have deserted Rehoboam even if he had redressed their grievances, or if there had been no well-founded grievances. This resolution was only the culminating point of the jealousy of the ten tribes against Judah, a feeling which had long been in existence, especially among the tribe of Ephraim, which had succeeded in acquiring ascendency over the remaining tribes. The two tribes Judah and Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh were looked upon as one tribe) were the most numerous among all. Moreover, both had no inconsiderable claims. Judah had already been brilliantly distinguished in the blessing of Jacob; Moses had given him the first place in the camp of the Israelites; in Canaan he had received exceptionally large territory. Ephraim, already preferred before his brother by Jacob and Moses, Genesis 48:19-20, Deuteronomy 33:17, and always appearing as the representative of the whole tribe of Joseph, was proud of the pre-eminence of his ancestor, called a prince over his brethren in the blessing of Jacob, proud that Joshua had sprung from his midst, proud of the distinction of having possessed the tabernacle of the covenant at Shiloh for so many years, proud of the leadership which he had maintained during the whole period of the judges; comp. his reproaches against Gideon in Judges 8:1, and his rising against Jephthah in Judges 12, also the 78th Psalm, which shows clearly that during the whole period of the judges Ephraim had been in possession of a certain pre-eminence. Pride on account of real or imaginary superiority could not fail soon to awaken jealousy between the two tribes. This was plainly seen after the death of Saul. To avoid being subject to the Judaite David, Ephraim and the remaining nine tribes, which he had succeeded in reducing to a kind of dependence, probably on the pretext that the disproportionate power of Judah demanded a strong counter-influence, joined Ish-bosheth without regard to the will of God, which had been revealed by Samuel, and confirmed by the destruction of Saul and of his sons, who were not capable of reigning. David’s personal qualities finally gained the victory over this jealousy. Internal differences were swallowed up by the prospect of external power. David was voluntarily acknowledged king by the ten tribes also. But the fire still smouldered in the ashes, and David’s wisdom, which led him to choose his residence and the seat of the sanctuary without the tribe of Judah, did not avail to extinguish it. The success of Absalom’s revolt is certainly mainly attributable to the jealousy of Ephraim: the tribe which had refused allegiance to David hoped to derive advantage in the general confusion. This was immediately followed by the revolt of Sheba, to whom all Israel deserted, while the tribe of Judah remained true to its king. The 78th Psalm, composed by the Davidic Asaph, is highly instructive with respect to these relations. The object of the whole psalm is to meet the danger of refusing to submit to the divine decree by which the prerogative of the tribe of Ephraim was transferred to the tribe of Judah, of regarding as usurpation that which contained a divine judgment, and rising up against the sanctuary in Zion, and against the supremacy of David and of his tribe. It shows plainly that the spirit of rebellion among the ten tribes, and especially in Ephraim, existed as early as David’s time. But under David and Solomon participation in the national fame of Israel founded by these great kings formed an antidote to the jealousy of Ephraim, by which means its energy was broken, just as the Republicans in France remained quiet during the brilliant period of Napoleon. But after Solomon’s death it broke forth into clear flame, and the consequence of disregarding the true warning of Samuel was the deplorable separation of the kingdom, which dealt the Israelitish nation a mortal wound. This must be attributed not only to the jealousy of Ephraim, but also in some measure to the deep-rooted hatred of Benjamin towards Judah, who could never forgive the loss of the kingdom. We see how great this hatred was, from the conduct of the Benjamite Shimei on Absalom’s revolt, from the rebellion of Sheba, himself a Benjamite, and from the circumstance that Benjamin was the only tribe that was not numbered, doubtless because Joab feared to awaken its rebellious disposition. But even granting that the Israelites had represented their grievances with honest intent, yet they would have had no right to rebel when they found no hearing. Some, indeed, such as Michaelis, have affirmed the contrary. The ten tribes were under no obligation to accept the king of the tribe of Judah. For seven years David had been king over Judah alone, before he had been chosen and appointed king by the remaining tribes, who in the meantime had a king of the house of Saul. But this assertion is based on a completely false view. The kingdom was never an elective one: until now God had always reserved to Himself the right of appointing the king; the states had nothing to do but to acknowledge His choice. Their omission to do this for the seven years succeeding the death of Saul was their first sin, and cannot serve as a justification of a second. God had called David and all his race to the throne; hence the apostasy was directed against Him until He gave the people permission to choose a new ruler. It is true, indeed, that this revelation of God’s will had been contained in the announcement made by the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam during Solomon’s reign. But this does not by any means justify Jeroboam and the nation, even if the announcement did really contain a summons to action, and was not rather a prediction of the future, whose accomplishment Jeroboam and the nation should quietly have left to the Lord, without trying to bring it about by their own sin. Their conduct shows that they had little regard to this announcement of God’s, which was entitled to some consideration, even if misunderstood, as the spring of their actions. Their motives appear to be purely carnal, without the smallest trace of a higher spirit. But the announcement of Ahijah, still totally misapprehended by Ewald, cannot be otherwise regarded than as the promise of kingship to David through Samuel, and David’s conduct shows us how the ten tribes ought to have acted. The answer of Rehoboam was very welcome to the ten tribes, as his experienced counsellors had foreseen, according to 1 Kings 12:7. A soft answer would have placed them in an embarrassing position, by obliging them to reveal their disposition to rebel. They declared their desertion from the house of David, and broke up the assembly. Rehoboam now became aware of his imprudence, and sent Adoram, one of his servants, to pacify them. This too would have been successful if the people had really sought nothing further than an alleviation of their burdens; but since this was not the case, it only served to increase their rage, the more so because the king had been imprudent enough to choose as his ambassador a hated commissioner of taxes. The nation stoned Adoram, in order to make the breach irreparable. Rehoboam now fled in haste to Jerusalem. There he made preparation for war against Israel, but gave up his preparations as soon as the prophet Shemaiah, in the name of the Lord, forbade him to make war, revealing that the continuance of the separation was the will of the Lord. This obedience shows that he still retained more pious disposition than the wretched Jeroboam. Thus the kingdom was divided into two unequal parts. Besides the tribe of Judah, Rehoboam had supremacy over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah, according to 1 Kings 12:17. By the former representation, these included the Simeonites and a part of the tribe of Benjamin, viz. Jerusalem and its nearest Benjamitic environs, those immediately dependent on the capital. It is generally supposed that the whole tribe of Benjamin remained true to the Davidic kingship; but it has been shown in my commentary on Psalms 80 that this view is wholly untenable. Only one tribe, therefore, remained to the royal house of David; for Simeon, which had been incorporated with Judah, no longer existed as a tribe at the time of the separation of the kingdom. This Judaic kingdom lasted for four centuries, the length of time which elapsed from the separation of the kingdom to the Chaldaic destruction. Of the foreign conquests, the royal house of Judah still retained the lands of the Philistines and the Idumeans, which bordered on the tribe of Judah. But the former seem to have emancipated themselves very early. Ewald conjectures that they took advantage of the Egyptian invasion under Rehoboam. Then Judah was joined by the whole tribe of Levi. Levi was bound to the sanctuary, and could not recognise the intended innovations of Jeroboam without the grossest apostasy. From the beginning Jeroboam had assumed the most insolent manner towards this tribe, because he despaired of winning it permanently to his cause. Thus the kingdom of Judah was at least in some measure on a par with Israel. Israel, indeed, had all the tributary lands in the east as far as the Euphrates; but under existing circumstances this was a most precarious possession, and was in fact soon lost.
Jeroboam was the representative of the evil spirit which animated the tribe of Ephraim even during the time of the judges, as we learn from Psalms 78, and in the time of his leadership exercised as injurious an influence on the whole of the nation, as afterwards upon Israel. He sought to retain by carnal means the kingdom which had been won by carnal means. In 1 Kings 12:26 we read: “And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David.” In 1 Kings 11:38 the Lord had promised him that He would give the throne to him and to his family if he would walk in His ways. But this promise made no impression on him, because he had no faith. His evil conscience kept him in continual fear. He was particularly suspicious when Jerusalem remained as before the seat of the sanctuary for the ten tribes also. Looked at merely from the standpoint of human wisdom, there was great foundation for this suspicion. The religious union which was maintained by the yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem might readily awaken a desire for the restoration of civil union, and it would be a matter of great difficulty to stifle the old allegiance to the royal house of David, which was enveloped in special glory by the circumstance that it resided at the seat of the sanctuary, if it still received new and powerful incentive. If Jeroboam had been a truly pious king, he would have confidently left it to God to ward off these evil consequences; but he showed by his conduct that he was utterly godless, and regarded religion only as a means for his own ends. Religious separation would make the political breach irreparable. If sacra communia no longer existed, the striving after civil unity would of necessity cease also. Under the pretext that the pilgrimage to Jerusalem was too burdensome to the nation, owing to the great distance, he set up two golden calves,—the one at Dan, the northern limit of the kingdom, the other at Bethel, the southern limit,—and tried to deprive the thing of its offensive character by appealing to the example of Aaron, who had established a similar worship immediately after the exodus out of Egypt. We learn that Jeroboam appealed to the example of Aaron, from the complete agreement of his words with those of Aaron in Exodus 32:4 : “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” The calf-worship which he established was not, however, mere dead imitation, but had also a new root. We are led to this inference by what is said in 1 Kings 12:2 with reference to Jeroboam’s sojourn in Egypt,—“for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon,”—and also by the twofold number of the calves, and the fact of their being set up in different places. Two sacred bulls, the Apis at Memphis, and the Mnevis at Heliopolis, were worshipped by all Egypt. The worship of one of the two, of Mnevis probably, first began in the interval between Moses and Jeroboam. The erection of a new sanctuary in itself would have been a crime, even if the worship had been conducted in perfect accordance with the directions of the law. We see how deeply this was recognised in early times, by the dealings with the two and a half tribes, in the book of Joshua. But the establishment of this worship was a far greater crime. There can be no doubt that Jeroboam was actuated by a desire to destroy the inner unity, after the outer religious unity had been removed by the establishment of new places to worship God, and thus to form an indestructible barrier between Judah and Israel. It was impossible for the Judaites to regard the Israelitish worship except with horror. Complete idolatry was by no means intended, just as little as in the wilderness and in the image-worship of Micah. The calves were only intended as a symbolization of Jehovah. Hence throughout the books of the Kings the sin of Jeroboam is distinguished from idolatry proper, and represented as comparatively less: thus, for example, in 1 Kings 16:31-33; 2 Kings 3:2-3, 2 Kings 10:30-31. In the minor prophets also a distinction is made between the worship of calves and the worship of Baal, however strongly the former might be denounced; comp. Michaelis, Mos. Recht. S. 245. The passage, 1 Kings 14:9, where the prophet Ahijah says to Jeroboam, “Thou hast gone and made thee other gods,” only points out that the crime of worshipping Jehovah under the image of a bull was of the same nature as idolatry, just as the Lord had previously characterized the licentious glance as adultery, without meaning to assert that it was completely identical with it. But the worship of images was also most strictly prohibited in the law, and was characterized in the Decalogue as a kind of idolatry. The way in which it was punished in the wilderness shows what a grievous crime it was in the sight of the Lord. To those who are not acquainted with human nature, it seems incomprehensible, at the first glance, how Jeroboam could have influenced the ten tribes to commit such an abomination. It seems that it must have been impossible for him to find any plausible pretext. But experience suffices to show what incredible ingenuity man possesses in perverting the clearest statements of Scripture, when they are in opposition to his desires. We do not know what distinctions Jeroboam invented in order to show that the Mosaic law was not applicable to this case. We learn from 1 Kings 12:28 that he did really try to make his conduct appear consistent with the law. Probably he argued that the people had now become mature, so that the prohibition which had been intended for their childhood was no longer applicable. This innovation of Jeroboam’s had the most disastrous consequences. The chosen symbolization of Jehovah necessarily gave rise to low ideas of Him. His ethical attributes—that which distinguishes the God of Israel most markedly from the idols of the heathen—were by this means thrown completely into the background, only the aspect of power is made prominent. And, moreover, the prohibition of the worship of images in the Pentateuch was as definite and clear as possible. And since the people had allowed themselves to interpret the law against their better knowledge and conscience in so important a case, they naturally did the same thing in other matters, whenever the corrupt desire of their hearts suggested it. Every conscious unfaithfulness, if cherished and excused, inevitably leads to complete ruin in the community, no less than in the individual. The introduction of image-worship offered a loophole to heathenism, through which it could not be prevented entering. A second means which Jeroboam employed for the destruction of religious unity was this,—he robbed the Levites of the dignity which had been bestowed on them by Moses, and had been so gloriously ratified by the miracle of the budding rod and the destruction of the company of the rebels, and even drove them completely from the land: comp. 2 Chronicles 11:13-17; 1 Kings 12:31 Kings 12:31, 1 Kings 13:33. If the Levites had continued to be the common servants of the sanctuary in the two kingdoms, there would always have been an element of union between them. And even if it had been possible to gain over some of the Levites in the beginning to the interest of the innovations, yet the spirit of tribe and of position was too powerful to allow this intrusion to have any permanence. The deposition of the Levites, which was apparently justified by the opposition of the tribe to the changes made by the king,—an opposition which must have been very welcome,—gave him an opportunity of attaching a number of individuals to his own interest. He chose new priests from the midst of the nation. From these, whose dignity had no divine foundation, but rose and fell with the political government, he could expect no opposition to his attempt to constitute himself spiritual ruler and chief exponent of the law: comp. 1 Kings 12:32 ff., according to which he himself offered up sacrifice and incense and ordained the priests; Amos 7:13, where the high priest Amaziah calls the sanctuary at Bethel the “King’s Chapel.” It was of course necessary for the king to vindicate this position, otherwise an end would soon have been put to his innovations: they could only be maintained by the same power which had first called them into life. The worship of calves was first established at Dan, and then at Bethel; the feast of tabernacles was celebrated in both places, in the latter in the presence of Jeroboam, but not as it ought to have been done in accordance with the law, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, but of the eighth month. Perhaps he availed himself of the pretext that the feast of tabernacles was at the same time a feast of thanksgiving for fruit and vintage, but in some northern districts of the ten tribes these did not come to an end until after the legal term. His true object was nothing else than to destroy the religious unity between Judah and Israel. Hence the time had now come for the Lord to assert His sovereignty over Israel, unless the godless king were to persevere in his evil course. The way in which this happened is narrated in 1 Kings 13. We take for granted a knowledge of the contents of this chapter. Jeroboam, in his carnal wisdom, had not thought of the strongest link which bound the people to the Lord and to one another, viz. the prophethood, which offered a more powerful and effectual resistance to the abuse of religion in the service of a self-seeking, political interest, than the priesthood would have done. He soon found to his cost that he had erred in his calculation. A prophet from the kingdom of Judah, who had come to Bethel at the command of the Lord, while Jeroboam was officiating in his assumed character of high priest, prophesied, with a precision adapted to existing circumstances, that at a future time a king of Judah would destroy the altar and slay the high priests,—a prophecy which was only fulfilled 350 years afterwards by Josiah, the pious king, who destroyed the altar of Jeroboam at Bethel, having special regard to the prediction of the prophet, whose grave the people of the city pointed out to him, and recognised what happened as the fulfilment of the well-known prophecy. A doubly remarkable event, the rending of the altar and the stiffening of the arm of the king, which had been threateningly raised against the prophet, together with the healing of it at his request, confirmed his divine mission, and strengthened the impression on the people, who were assembled in great numbers. If we take our standpoint on the sphere of revelation, events such as these must necessarily have occurred according to idea and analogy. This object was still more definitely attained by the subsequent fate of the prophet himself. The Lord had given him a command neither to eat nor drink by the way, nor to return by the same way. This command was given out of consideration to the weakness of the prophet. It was to be anticipated that the king, in order to do away with the injurious impression which the prophecy had made on the nation, would try by every means in his power to gain over the prophet to his side. Hence a long stay exposed him to great temptation, and, if he persisted in it, to great danger; if he were to choose another way, he would not be so readily found by the king’s messengers. He resisted the enticements of Jeroboam; but when the tempter assailed him in a more disguised form, he succumbed. The instrument of his seduction, the old prophet from Bethel, is a very remarkable man in a psychological aspect. In ancient times it has been contested whether he was a true or a false prophet. The truth lies between the two extremes. He was originally a true prophet of the true God, but sinned by keeping silence respecting the innovations of Jeroboam. He was not, however, quite hardened. This is shown by the same history which forms a monument of his apostasy. When he heard of the prediction and the deeds of the Judaic prophet, he was seized with deep shame on account of his fall; and the struggle to conceal from himself his own disgrace and to appease the torments of his conscience explains why he urged the prophet so strongly to go home with him. He sought to vindicate his honour, as it were, to himself and to others, by proving that a true prophet would have fellowship with him. The fact that to gain this object he employed such disgraceful means—the false pretext of a revelation received from God—shows how strong the stings of conscience were, so that he felt it necessary to purchase at any price what seemed to promise him some measure of rest. The assertion of those who look upon the old man simply as a false prophet, that it was pure wickedness which prompted him to lead the Judaic prophet to transgress the divine command, is inconsistent with the narrative throughout. The Judaic prophet pays no heed to his proposal until he feigns a divine revelation. Hence Michaelis designates his transgression as comparatively innocent, but very erroneously. He was firmly persuaded that the revelation which had been given to him was divine, which was not the case with respect to the other. He would therefore not have yielded to the entreaty if his inclination had not led him to believe in the truth of that which was least authenticated. His punishment, though quite just, would not indeed have been so severe, if it had not been intended to furnish a striking example of the severity with which God avenges the neglect of His commands, and at the same time to confirm his divine mission. God also so ordered the circumstances of the punishment, that it could not be regarded as the work of accident, and effected the salvation of both prophets. He who by a false prophecy had seduced the Judaic prophet, was compelled to announce the judgment that was to follow, overpowered, like Balaam, by the Spirit of God. The circumstance that the lion, contrary to his nature, left the corpse and the ass uninjured, must have excited universal astonishment. The old prophet must have been deeply moved by the knowledge that by his guilt, another, far more innocent than he, should have died so terrible a death. That the matter really did exercise a salutary influence upon him, appears from chap. 1 Kings 13:21, 1 Kings 13:32, where he expresses the strongest faith in the fulfilment of the promise with respect to Josiah, as well as from 1 Kings 13:33, where, in strong contrast to the salutary impression produced on the prophet, we have a representation of the obduracy of Jeroboam. Josiah held the grave of the Judaic prophet in great honour, as that of a holy man.
Jeroboam persisted in his obduracy, and soon received another divine warning. The prophets of the true God must have been an abomination to him, for they were sworn opponents of his image-worship. Nevertheless, on the sickness of his son Abijah, anxiety impelled him to send his wife to one of these prophets, Ahijah. But lest this sending should be regarded as a public recognition of the divine calling of the prophet, and should therefore bring shame upon him, she was to disguise herself as a woman in humble life, and to take with her such small presents as were in keeping with this station. With the inconsistency always found in combination with unbelief, Jeroboam trusted that the prophet, in consequence of his age, was almost blind. But the Lord revealed to Ahijah what his bodily eye could not see. Immediately on the entrance of the queen he announced the complete rejection and destruction of the house of Jeroboam on account of his grievous sins, and at the same time predicted the heavy misfortunes which would come upon Israel, until their final carrying away into captivity beyond the Euphrates. And that there might be no doubt regarding the truth of his announcement, he made a prophecy with respect to the immediate future: the son of the king should die immediately on the return of the mother. He only of the posterity of Jeroboam should receive a solemn burial, because he was found to be good before God in comparison with the remainder of the house of Jeroboam. The boy must have distinguished himself from the remaining children of the rejected Jeroboam by a pious disposition. Jeroboam was so hardened, that even the accurate fulfilment of this prediction was powerless to move him. With respect to the other events which befell him, and his actions, the author refers us to the more systematically chronicled records of Israel, because they were not suitable for his object, which was to write sacred history. We remark further, that Jeroboam raised Tirzah to be the capital of his kingdom, without paying any regard to the established claims of Sichem. He was perhaps led to do this by the Song of Solomon 6:4. It is quite in keeping with his politics, which invariably sought to find substitutes for the privileges enjoyed by the kingdom of Judah,—setting Bethel, for example, in opposition to Jerusalem, and the calves which had been consecrated by the example of Aaron in opposition to the ark of the covenant,—that he should choose for his residence a town which had been so honourably named by Solomon in connection with Jerusalem, and had been characterized as enjoying equal privileges.
Turning now to the kingdom of Judah, we see clearly that it was much more favourably situated. We here find the temple at Jerusalem as the one place of the pure worship of Jehovah, in opposition to the impure worship at Dan and Bethel, as well as many other sacred places, among which Gilgal and Beer-sheba, situated in the kingdom of Judah, were very much resorted to. The class of the priests and Levites, strengthened in their natural dependence on the law by their banishment from the kingdom of the ten tribes, formed a strong bulwark against the entrance of godlessness. Since the Mosaic separation between the ecclesiastical and the civil sphere had been maintained in the kingdom of Judah, the prophethood had greater scope. The dynasty of David, resting upon divine right, and surrounded by venerable memories, which guaranteed even to its weaker members the recognition and love of the people, continued to form the central point of the nation, and secured its quiet development; while in Israel no dynasty succeeded in establishing itself, revolution succeeded to revolution, the people were distracted by the bloody party struggles, and a rude military despotism prevailed. Even the heritage of higher culture and civilisation which had been gained under Solomon passed over to Judah. Memories of the time of David continually reacted against intruding corruption, and gave powerful assistance to the reformations by which they were set aside, never allowing the heathen tendency, which had been advancing ever since the last days of Solomon, to acquire permanent supremacy. Of Rehoboam the history tells comparatively less than of Jeroboam. The fact that 1 Kings 14:21 represents Rehoboam as having been forty-one years of age when he ascended the throne has given rise to suspicion. Grotius, Clericus, and Michaelis have maintained that we must undoubtedly regard this as a critical error. The following are the reasons which they adduce:—According to this, Rehoboam must have been born a year before Solomon began to reign. But at this time he was still very young. This argument is not decisive. Solomon was eighteen years of age when he began to reign, and in this respect we must not judge the East by the West; and the argument that on Rehoboam’s accession to the throne he is described as young, and as having grown up with the young counsellors, has no weight. There is certainly a youthful character about the answer which Rehoboam gives to the ten tribes; but, if not generally, yet very frequently, judgment fails to come with years. It must be conceded that a critical emendation, without the authority of manuscripts, is more admissible in a statement of numbers than elsewhere. But in this case the accuracy of the account is confirmed by the fact that we find the same thing in 2 Chronicles 12:13. Rehoboam’s first care was to erect fortresses on the frontier towards Israel; comp. 1 Chronicles 6:5 ff. In the first three years of his reign the condition of the nation in a religious, and hence also in a political aspect, was pretty flourishing, as we are expressly told in Chronicles. All the priests and Levites had repaired to the kingdom of Judah; and a great number of God-fearing laymen, who abhorred the worship of calves, preferred to leave their fatherland rather than give up the freedom of sacrificing to the true God in the place which He had commanded. By this means the kingdom of Judah not only received a considerable accession to external power, but was also greatly strengthened internally. Opposition towards the corrupt spirit which prevailed in the kingdom of Israel at first roused nation and king to active zeal for the law of the Lord. But here also it was shown that religious movements, when connected with political struggles, have no lasting character; already, after the expiration of three years, Rehoboam turned aside from the good course which he had first trodden. His example exercised a most injurious influence on the nation, though a considerable