Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Kings 15:1 - 15:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Reign of Abijam.
1Ki_15:1
Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, reigned Abijam [see note on 1Ki_14:31. It is implied in 2Ch_11:20-22 that he was not the firstborn among Rehoboam's twenty-eight sons, but the eldest son of the favourite wife. As he left behind him thirty-eight children (2Ch_13:21) at his decease, some three years later, he must have been of considerable age at his accession. This consideration rather favours the idea that Rehoboam was "forty and one years old when he began to reign" (2Ch_12:13)] over Judah.
1Ki_15:2
Three years [The Alex. LXX. says δεκὰεξ , sixteen. The" three years" are not to be interpreted strictly. As he ascended the throne in the eighteenth and died in the twentieth year of Jeroboam's reign, he cannot have completed three years. But it does not follow that "he cannot have reigned much more than two years" (Rawlinson, and similarly Keil). He may have reigned all but three] reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah [in 2Ch_13:2 called Michaiah, Heb. Michajahu. That the same person is meant is proved as well by the context as by 2Ch_11:21, where the name is given as here. Keil (cf. Dict. Bib. 2:162) ascribes the discrepancy to an error of the copyist; but the names are so unlike in the original as to discountenance this assumption. I venture to suggest that Michajahu was the significant form—the word means "Who is like Jehovah?"—which the name Maachah, "oppression," borne by the Geshurite princess who married David (2Sa_3:3) assumed when she joined the Lord's people, and embraced, as no doubt she would do, the religion of Jehovah. Such a change would be quite in accordance with the genius and traditions of the Semitic races (Gen_17:5, Gen_17:15; Gen_30:1-43. passim; Gen_32:28; Gen_41:45; Exo_6:3, etc. Cf. 2Ki_23:34; 2Ki_24:17; Hos_1:4, Hos_1:6), and there may well have been special reasons in this case, apart from the piety of David, why it should be made. For the name Maachah appears to have been taken Iron the town and district of that name near Geshur—a part of Syria was called Syria Maachah (1Ch_19:6; cf. 2Sa_10:6-8). In 2Sa_20:14, 2Sa_20:15 we read of a district of Beth Maachah—and it not improbably witnessed to unhappy memories. How natural it would be that David's bride should take a name of better omen and of a religious import, and how natural that the grand-daughter who bore her name should be called by that name in both its forms. Since writing the above, I find that a somewhat similar idea has occurred long since to others. Both Kimchi and Jarchi hold that she had two names. It is supposed by some that she assumed the name Michaiah, as more dignified, on becoming queen. Wordsworth thinks that Michaiah was her real name, and that it was degraded into Maachah when she was deposed for idolatry. This latter view dovetails with the one suggested above. It would be quite in accordance with Jewish usages and habits of thought that the name which had been changed into Michaiah when the grandmother became a proselyte, should be changed back into Maachah when this princess apostatized], the daughter [rather, grand-daughter. áÇÌú includes all female descendants, as àÅí (see 2Sa_20:10) all anxestresses] of Abishalom. We can hardly doubt that Absalom, the son of David, is meant here. We have
(1) the express statement of 2Ch_11:21, "Rehoboam loved Maachah, the daughter of Absalom," etc.
(2) The fact that two of Rehoboam's other wives were of the family of David, which shows that it was part of his policy to marry the daughters of that house.
(3) The mother of Absalom was named Maachah (2Sa_3:3).
(4) The name is so uncommon—in fact, it is ἅπαξ λεγ —that another person can hardly be intended. Moreover the variation in spelling is extremely slight. It has been held, however, that a different person is designated by the name, principally because Absalom had hut one daughter whose name was Tamar (2Sa_14:27), whereas Abijah's mother is said to have been the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2Ch_13:2). But this difficulty admits of an easy solution. Tamar was doubtless married to Uriel, and Maachah was the fruit of this marriage. And with this explanation agrees the account of Josephus (Ant. 8.10, 1).
1Ki_15:3
And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him [sins, i.e; from the theocratic standpoint. See 1Ki_14:22, 1Ki_14:25. It does not appear that either Abijah or Rehoboam was a vicious man, and from his pious language on Mount Zemaraim (2Ch_13:10-12) we should certainly have thought that Abijah was a god-fearing prince. But 1Ki_14:13 proves that he had sanctioned idolatry, and this was no doubt his principal sin, as the next words explain]: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord and his God, as the heart of David his father [the words used of Solomon. 1Ki_2:4].
1Ki_15:4
Nevertheless [ ëÄé but, sed, sondern, Gesen. 393] for David's sake did the Lord his God give him a lamp [Better than margin, candle. The word is "always used figuratively of progeny." See note on 1Ki_2:26; and of 2Sa_21:17; Job_18:5, Job_18:6; Psa_132:17] in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem [But for David's piety, that is to say, his family would have been dethroned, if not destroyed, as was that of Jeroboam (1Ki_14:10), of Baasha (1Ki_16:2), of Ahab (2Ki_10:11), etc. Abijah was the third prince of that line who had permitted idolatrous worship, so that that dynasty had richly deserved to forfeit its position. The stability of the family of David on the throne for nearly 400 years, amid all the changes and chances of that period, and whilst in Israel there were "nine changes of dynasty within 250 years" is, as Rawlinson remarks, very "difficult to account for on mere grounds of human reason"]:
1Ki_15:5
Because [ àÂùÆø , here causative for éÇòÇï àé . Comp. quod] David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. [2Sa_2:4. But this last clause is not found in the LXX; and such a statement was more likely to be inserted by transcribers, having first appeared in the margin as a gloss, than to be omitted, had it ever formed part of the text. And in support of this view it may be alleged that
(1) the matter of Uriah was by no means David's only sin, and
(2) it is not the manner of our writer thus to qualify his words. See next verse.]
1Ki_15:6
And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. [Practically identical with 1Ki_14:30, where see note. Thenius thinks the insertion of the words were due to the carelessness of some copyist, and Bähr admits that our present text is possibly not the original one. For Rehoboam, some MSS; with the Syriac and Arabic, read Abijah, but this is clearly an emendation, which in turn begets another repetition (1Ki_14:7), and there is really no need either to alter or suspect the text. Such repetitions are quite in accordance with Eastern usage, and Rehoboam here stands for the house of Rehoboam, or the cause and kingdom which Rehoboam represented. The object of mentioning his name can hardly be "to remind the reader that Abijam inherited this war from his father" (Rawlinson), for it was only on Rehoboam's death that the slumbering hostility blazed out into actual war. That there was warfare between Abi-jam and Jeroboam we know not only from 1Ki_14:7, but from 2Ch_13:3-20 also.
1Ki_15:7
Now the rest of the acts of Abijam and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles [see note on 1Ki_14:29. The marginal reference to 2Ch_13:1-22. misleads the casual reader] of the kings of Judah? And there was war [not only hostility, but open war (Vulgate, praelium), hence the repetition] between Abijam and Jeroboam.
1Ki_15:8
And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David [This fact alone should negative Lightfoot's theory as to his name; see note on 1Ki_14:31]: and Ass his son reigned in his stead.
The Reign of Asa.
1Ki_15:9
And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Ass [Gesen. interprets the name to mean "physician"] over Judah. [This reign is related at much greater length in 2Ch_14:1-15.—16. We are there told of the Ethiopian invasion, of the prophecies of Azariah and Hanani, of the league with Syria, etc.]
1Ki_15:10
And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem [Corn. a Lapide points out that Ass saw eight kings of Israel on the throne, Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab]. And his mother's [or grandmother's, as margin] name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. [The same words as in 1Ki_15:2, and the reference can hardly be to a different person. Bähr indeed questions whether àÅí can here stand for grandmother,
(1) because in every other case it designates the king's mother,
(2) Because the mother of the king, and not the grandmother, enjoyed the dignity and position of Gebirah (1Ki_15:13; 2Ch_15:16). Some would read for Abishalom, Uriel of Gibeah; others, strengthened by the Michaiah of 2Ch_13:2, think the historian mistaken in mentioning the name of Abijam's mother (2Ch_13:2; 2Ch_11:21) as Maachah. The difficulty by no means admits of a ready solution, but perhaps the best explanation is that the grandmother, Maachah, Rehoboam's favourite wife, retained her position, possibly by force of character, or because Asa's mother was dead. It is not certain, however, that if the latter had lived she would have displaced Maashah, of whose influence and imperious temper we have several indications; e.g; in the appointment of her son, though not the firstborn, to succeed his father, and in her open maintenance of idol worship, and above all in the fact that she was publicly deposed by Asa.
1Ki_15:11
And Ass did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. ["It is a wonder how Ass should be good, of the seed of Abijam, of the son of Maachah" (Hall).]
1Ki_15:12
And he took away the Sodomites [see on 1Ki_14:24, and Rom_1:23-27. It appears from 1Ki_22:46 that this abomination was not wholly suppressed] out of the land, and removed all the idols [ âÄÌìËÌìÄéí from âÈÌìÇì volvit A term of contempt (see Deu_29:17, where it is coupled with "abominations; "Eze_23:37); but whether the word is to be interpreted by âÅÌìÆì a ball of dung, in which case these idols (Dei stereorei) would have a designation like Beelzebul ("the lord of dung"), or with âÇÌì a heap of stones (Gen_31:46, Gen_31:48), Dei lapidei, is uncertain. Keil would translate logs, Gesenius trunks, stocks, which from being rolled might well bear this name] that his fathers had made.
1Ki_15:13
And also Maachah his mother, oven her he removed from being queen [Rather, queen-mother. Gebiruh, as already pointed out on 1Ki_2:19, answers to the Sultana Valide. The Vulgate reads, Ne esset princeps in sacris Priapi. Wordsworth reminds us of the position which the queen-mother Atossa holds in the Persae. A queen consort is hardly possible in a polygamous household; see Kitto, 4:177] because [Heb. which, as in verse 5] she had made all idol [ îÄôÀìÆöÆú from ôÈîìõ terruit, signifies an object of fear, formido—not pudendum, a thing of shame, as the Rabbis and others have held, i.e; a phallic image (simulacrum obscoenum, Jerome), but horrendum. The devout Jew could not but regard such objects with horror] in a grove [Heb. for (i.e; to serve as) an Asherah. See note on 1Ki_14:15, 1Ki_14:23. Asherah is not the name of the goddess (= Astarte), as Wordsworth thinks, but of the image], and Asa destroyed [Marg. cut off, Heb. simply cut, which here must mean cut down. The image was, no doubt, planted erect in the ground] her idol [horror, as above], and burnt it [this shows that it was made of wood] by the brook Kidron. [Cf. Exo_32:20. Here, as in 1Ki_17:3 (where see note), our translators have been unable to adhere strictly to the original "in the brook," etc; from not knowing that ðÇçÇì , which primarily means "brook," also means" watercourse," wady. It is probable that the brook was at this time flowing, and that the ashes of the wooden Asherah were cast into it; but the burning also took place in the Wady, or valley. We read of another similar burning in 2Ki_23:4, 2Ki_23:6; but in this ease the ashes were either carried to Bethel or cast upon the graves, to defile them. It is a fair inference that on this latter occasion the Kedron was dry. The valley, "the fields of the Kedron" (2Ki_23:4 l.c.), is conveniently placed for such a purpose.]
1Ki_15:14
But the high places [evidently such as are referred to in 1Ki_3:1-28, i.e; unauthorized shrines of Jehovah; cf. 2Ki_14:4] were not taken away [lit; departed not. Yet we read in 2 Chronicles 45:3, that Asa "took away the high places (cf. verse 5). But it is clear, even from 2Ch_15:17, that all of them were not re moved, and the discrepancy arises from the well-known Eastern idiom of putting the whole for the part, of which we have in stances in Gen_7:19; Exo_9:25, etc. Cf. Exo_9:32; 2Ki_9:35, and see below. Asa probably aimed at removing all, and he may have removed all out of the cities (2Ch_14:5), but some remained in the country districts or in remote places. Or he may have swept them away for a short time, and they may have been stealthily and gradually reintroduced. It may be interesting to remark here that down to the present day the cultus of the high places exists—under a modified form, it is true—in Palestine. Every traveller will remember the Mukama which crown almost every hill. The religion of the Fellahin, though nominally Mohammedan, is really, like that of China, a worship of the dead. "In almost every village of the country a small building, surmounted by a whitewashed dome, is observable, being the sacred chapel of the place; it is variously called Kubbeh, "dome," Mazor, "shrine," or Mukam, "station," the latter being a Hebrew word, used in the Bible for the places of the Canaanites (Deu_2:2)… Just as in the time of Moses, so now the position chosen for the Mukam is generally conspicuous This Mukam represents the real religion of the peasant"]: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the Lord all his days. [We have here a notable instance of the Oriental exaggeration just referred to. For the very same expression is used by the chronicler (2Ch_15:17), who in the next chapter (2 Chronic;es 2Ki_16:7-12) tells us of Asa's unfaithfulness in his old age.]
1Ki_15:15
And he brought in the things which his gather had dedicated [Heb. the holy things of his father. These were probably the spoils Abijah had taken in his war with Jeroboam (2Ch_13:18)], and the things which himself had dedicated [These were probably the spoils of the Ethiopians (2Ch_14:15; cf. 2Ch_15:11)], into [the Hebrew omits this word. Keil says that "house" is an accusative governed by "brought"], the house of the Lord, silver and gold, and vessels.
1Ki_15:16
And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days [This statement must be compared with 2Ch_14:1, 2Ch_14:6, from which we gather that during the first ten years of Asa's reign there cannot have been war, properly so called, between them. Indeed, it would seem from 2Ch_15:19, 2Ch_16:1, that it was not until the 36th year of Asa's reign that it first broke out. But these numbers have clearly not escaped corruption (see note there), as at the date last mentioned Baasha must have been dead. It is probable that war is to be taken here, as elsewhere (1Ki_14:30), in the sense of hostility, and in any case we have here another instance of the hyperbolical habit of the Eastern mind.]
1Ki_15:17
And Baasha, king of Israel, went up against Judah [This statement probably refers to the reconquest of the three cities which Abijah had taken from Jeroboam (2Ch_13:19), as Ramah could hardly have been rebuilt whilst Bethel remained in the hands of Judah], and built Ramah [Heb. the Ramah, i.e; "the elevation," or "high place." Now er Ram (= the height), in Benjamin (Jos_18:25; Jdg_19:18, Jdg_19:14), five miles distant from Jerusalem, near the frontier of the two territories, and also then, as now, on the great north road. It was the key, consequently, to both kingdoms. Hence the struggles to possess it, vers, 21, 22; 2Ch_16:1, etc.], that he might not suffer any to go out [Heb. not to give any going out, etc.] or come in to Asa, king of Judah. [The object of Baasha in fortifying this place is evident. It was not merely to have an advanced post as a menace to Jerusalem (Rawlinson), but primarily, by its command of the high road, to prevent his subjects from falling away to the kingdom of Judah, or even from going up to Jerusalem to worship; in fact, to isolate Judah and to blockade its capital. That there was a great defection to Ass at this time we know from 2Ch_15:9. This was an exodus which Baasha felt must be checked. Blunt has happily shown from 2Ch_16:6, etc; how the primary object must have been to "stop the alarming drainage of all that was virtuous out of their borders." Rawlinson sees in the fortification of this place "the first step towards a conquest of the southern kingdom." But as to this the text is silent, or rather it assigns an entirely different reason.]
1Ki_15:18
Then Asa took all the silver and the gold that were left [LXX. τὸ σὑρεθὲν , which Rawlinson thinks points to a corruption of our text. He says, "The Jewish treasuries should now have been tolerably full," because
(1) of the long peace (2Ch_14:1-6), and
(2) the "very much spoil" they had taken from the Ethiopians (ib; 1Ki_15:13). Compare 1Ki_15:15 above. But the historian has in mind the depletion of the treasury by Shishak (1Ki_14:26). It is true there was nothing "left" on that occasion, but the treasures since accumulated are referred to under this term. It may be the phrase is not strictly accurate, but the LXX. reading looks suspiciously like an emendation] in the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house, and delivered them into the hand of his servants: and king Asa sent them [cf. 2Ki_16:8. For this act of faithlessness he was reproved by Hanani the seer (2Ch_16:7): "O Asa, where was thy piety, while thou robbedst God to corrupt an infidel for the slaughter of the Israelites?" (Hall)] to Ben-hadad ["the son of the sun" (see note on 1Ki_11:23). Three kings of Damascus at least bore this name, viz; this king, his son (1Ki_20:1), and the son of Hazael (2 Kings . 24)], the son of Tabrimon [the name means, Good is Rimmon, as to which deity see note on 2Ki_5:18], the son of Hezion [by some identified with Rezin (1Ki_11:23), but on insufficient grounds] king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus ["The centre of the Aramaean power west of the Euphrates" (Ewald)], saying,
1Ki_15:19
There is a league [Rawlinson would render, "Let there be a league… as there was," but the A.V. is equally good. Asa claims that a league does exist, and, in fact, has never been broken] between me and thee, and between my father and thy father [Syria would seem to have been the first of the possessions of Solomon to regain its independence (1Ki_11:24). Its friendship would naturally be sought by Judah, as a counterpoise, perhaps, to the alliance between Israel and Egypt (Ewald)]: behold, I have sent unto thee a present [elsewhere a bribe. Psa_15:5; Psa_26:10; 1Sa_8:3] of silver and gold; come and break [Heb. come, break now, òÇì cohortative] thy league with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me. [Heb. go up from upon me.]
1Ki_15:20
So [Heb. and] Ben-hadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains [or princes; same word as in 1Ki_22:31; cf. 1Ki_20:24] of the hosts which he had against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon [now represented by Tell Dibbin, a mound near the north end of the Merj 'Ayun (which probably preserves the name), a "meadow of fountains," a few miles northwest of Daniel This hill would offer a commanding site for a stronghold, and traces are found there of a large and ancient city Now certainly identified with Tell el Kadi the "hill of the Judge" (which preserves the meaning of the name), near the main source of the Jordan. The Tell, apparently an extinct crater, is covered with ruins. Stanley, S. and P; p. 395-6. Thomson, "Land and Book," 1. p. 320. Van de Velde, if. p. 420. The situation is described as superb, and the country as extremely fertile. This is the last mention of the place in Scripture. Retribution has soon fallen on one of the centres of Jeroboam's schism], and Abel-beth-maachah [now known as Abil el Kamh All these towns are in the neighbourhood of Lake Huleh (Merom), and all being in the extreme north, bore the brunt of the invasion. The name Maachah is to be noticed in connection with 2Ch_16:2], and all Cinneroth [in Num_34:11; Deu_3:17, Cinnereth; in the New Testament, Gennesaret." "The expression 'all Cinneroth' is unusual, and may be compared with 'all Bithron,' probably like this, a district and not a town". It is the district on the western shore of the lake of Galilee, north of Tiberias, which gave its name to the adjoining sheet of water. A city Chinnereth, perhaps the capital of the district is mentioned Jos_19:1-51 :85], with [ òÇì not uncommonly has this meaning. Cf. Gen_32:12 (Hebrews), "the mother with the children;" Exo_35:22, "men with women."] all the land of Naphtali [Not only were the fortresses of Naphtali just mentioned smitten by the Syrians, but they laid waste all the surrounding district.]
1Ki_15:21
And it came to pasta, when Baaaha heard thereof, that he left off building of Ramah [He could not prosecute it when he had enemies on every side. He at once assumes the defensive], and dwelt in Tirzah. [1Ki_14:17. He retired to his capital It is not implied that he had entertained the idea of dwelling at Ramah.]
1Ki_15:22
Then king Asa made a proclamation [Heb. made all to hear] throughout all Judah; none was exempted [Heb. none free], and they took away [Heb. took up] the stones of Ramah, and the timber thereof, wherewith Baasha [It is noticeable that it is generally "king Asa," but never "king Baasha"] had bullded; and king Asa built with them Geba of Benjamin [Sometimes "the Geba," i.e; height; in Jos_18:24, Gaba; now Jeba, only 45' northeast of Ramah. This was the northern limit of the southern kingdom (2Ki_23:8). It occupied a striking position, standing on a rocky knoll on the south side of the great gorge of Michmash (now known as the Wady Suweinit), a "great crack or fissure in the country, with vertical precipices some 800 feet high". As Geba would command the pass, it is easy to understand why Asa fortified it, the more so as this defile "appears to have been more than once the meeting place between the Jews and their enemies" (Conder)], and Mizpah. [Heb. the Mizpah, i.e; watch tower (Gen_31:49). The name points to an eminence, but it is remarkable that while so many sites of minor importance have been recovered, this old gathering place of the tribes (Jdg_21:1; 1Sa_7:5; 1Sa_10:17-25), and the seat of Gedaliah's government (Jer_40:6), cannot be identified with certainty. It has been conjectured that it is now represented by the commanding eminence of Nebi Samwil,but Stanley and Grove argue in favour of Seopus, and "the survey has done little to throw light on this question". It is to be hoped that the "pit," or well, which Asa made (Jer_41:9), probably "to provide Mizpah with a plentiful supply of water in ease of a siege" (Ewald), may yet be brought to light.
1Ki_15:23
And the rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might [see 2Ch_14:1-15; 2Ch_15:1-19.], and all that he did, and the cities which he built [during the peace in the earlier part of his reign (2Ch_14:5, 2Ch_14:6)], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless [Heb. only. There was one exception to his otherwise happy and prosperous reign] in the time of his old age [see notes on 1Ki_1:1; 1Ki_11:4. "Old age" means here, as them, the end of life. Asa cannot well have been more than fifty. It was in the 39th year of his reign (2Ch_16:12) that this disease attacked him] he was diseased in his feet. [It is generally supposed that this disease was the gout. In the Chronicles (l.c.) he is reproached for seeking "not to the Lord but to the physicians." We must remember what the art of medicine at that day was like, and that the Jews regarded sickness and healing as alike the immediate acts of God.
1Ki_15:24
And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers ["in his own sepulchre which he had made for himself" (2Ch_16:14, which also notices "the bed filled with sweet odours," in which he was laid and the "very great burning" made for him)] in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead.
I. INTERNAL REFORMS. Two questions present themselves for consideration here. First, What were Asa's reforms? Secondly, In what way were they accomplished?
1. His reforms were practically of two kinds: (a) Moral, and (b) Religious. It is not implied that he either put morality before religion, or believed that the one could be separated from the other. It may be a question in these days—it is at least hotly disputed—whether morality can long support itself without a religious basis and religious sanctions; but it was no question in that dark age, or for many hundred years afterwards. Then it was a choice between the one true religion and the most shameful immoralities practised under the name of religion. All that is meant here, therefore, is that Asa's reforms resulted in purging and raising the tone of public morality by suppressing the idolatry which sanctioned and consecrated impurity.
(1) The moral reformation is suggested, to our minds by the words "He took away the Sodomites out of the land (1Ki_15:12). What an abyss of corruption does this one brief sentence reveal to us. "It is a shame even to speak of those things which" were "done of them in secret" (Eph_5:12). And this among the holy people, the bride of the Lord! No wonder that Asa's first effort was directed against these horrible enormities. This suppression of the Sodomites was a first step towards—
(2) The religious reformation. He next "removed all the idols that his fathers had made." "His fathers." Solomon, as well as Rehoboam and Abijah. Probably none of the three had himself reared idol shrines. But all the three had, to say the least, permitted idolatry, and connived at it. It was sin enough that they had not vigorously and promptly suppressed it. They were, each in his turn, the representative of the mighty God of Jacob. What were they doing that they permitted any rivalry between the bestial gods of the heathen and the Holy One of Israel? But probably we see here the bitter fruits of Solomon's sin—so true it is that "the evil that men do lives after them." When that powerful prince had once granted to foreign deities and shameful superstitions a footing in Tmmanuel's land, it was more than his comparatively feeble successors could do to dislodge them. The people loved to have it so, and neither Rehoboam nor Abijah was strong enough to say them nay. Thus did Solomon, down to Asa's days, yes, and down to the time of the captivity (2Ch_36:14), go on sinning in his grave.
And let us notice here an instructive contrast between Asa and Solomon. It was the wise king, the most magnificent of the monarchs of the earth, at the height of his prosperity; and towards the end of a long and peaceful reign, built altars for the abominations of neighbouring nations. It was a young prince, unknown to fame, with no special gifts or endowments, with a restricted dominion, and encompassed with difficulties, who was the first to stem this tide of sin and shame with which his great ancestor had flooded the land. "The first last, and the last first." Compare 1Co_1:27-29. Wealth has greater dangers than adversity.
2. But let us now consider the way in which these great reforms were brought about.
(1) He began at the right place. "Even Maachah his mother he removed," etc. The Gebirah, the first lady in the land, whose conduct would of course be an example to all the women of his realm (Est_1:17, Est_1:18), was deposed from her lofty station. The history of Israel shows repeatedly how the country took its tone, as indeed every country must do, more or less, from the court. It is not only in dress that the queen sets the fashion. The Japanese have a striking proverb, "Fish begin to stink at the head." If the court be corrupt, profligate, irreligious, the commonalty will soon follow suit, for we all imitate our superiors. In this sense is that word true, corruptio optimi pessima. It would consequently have been of little use for Asa to put down idols elsewhere had he tolerated them in the harem, the nursery of his successors. This hydra could not be slain by hewing its feet, or piercing its body; it was only mortal in its head. Maachah's "horror" must be destroyed or idolatry will live and flourish. Moreover in beginning with her, Asa shows that he appraised aright the power of female influence. He might have realized that those who "rock the cradle, rule the world." The sinister influence of the harem had ruined Rehoboam; it should not ruin Jehoshaphat. Here, again, let us mark the contrast between the conduct of Asa and that of Solomon; between the cases of Maachah and Naamah. Solomon built idol altars for his wives: Asa burnt the idol of his mother. The strong king was brought into subjection by weak and foolish women; the weak king humbled and degraded the proudest and strongest woman of her time. The former could not resist the blandishments of one of his many foreign mistresses when she petitioned for the gods and rites of her native country; the latter was deaf to the entreaties of his mother when she prayed to retain, not her idol, but her place. It must have cost him an effort to deal with the queen-mother who had exercised so great an influence in former reigns.
It has been said that the devil often "comes to a man in the shape of his wife and children" (J. Hinton), and truly a man's real foes are not unfrequently those of his own household. Just as their flattery is the most insidious and mischievous (Whately), so are their faults too often considered venial, and their sins, when manifest, are the hardest to reprove (cf. 1Ki_1:6; 1Sa_3:13). These are the "hand" and the "eye," which cause men to offend, and which they must cut off or pluck out and cast from them (Mat_5:29 sqq.) Hence the charge of Deu_13:6 sqq.; cf. Mat_10:37.
And the moral effect of this act, the public deposition of the queen-mother, can hardly be overestimated. It showed the country that the king was in real earnest; that he was no respecter of persons; that no idolatry could expect tolerance at his hands. Probably but for this he could neither have taken away the Sodomites nor removed the idols. Possibly it was because neither Rehoboam (see 2Ch_11:21) nor Abijam dared to deal with the idolatries of Maachah, who would seem to have been a woman of imperious will, that these foreign superstitions had defiled the land so long. Asa struck at their root in removing her from being queen.
(2) He did not stop halfway. He destroyed "with both hands earnestly" (Mic_7:3). He not only cut down her idol, he burnt it in the valley of the Kedron. There was no place left her for repentance. He had burnt his ships behind him; had destroyed the nests, so that the rooks might not return. This public burning, witnessed, no doubt, by crowds of spectators, spoke louder than any words or ordinances could do. When they saw the "horror" reduced to ashes, and the ashes cast into the brook, they could have no doubt as to the purpose of their king. They would remember how Moses had acted before (Exo_32:20).
(3) He did what he could. It is no reproach to him that "the high places were not removed" (Mat_10:14), for the chronicler (1Ki_14:5; 1Ki_15:12, 1Ki_15:18, 1Ki_15:17), as well as our author, testifies that this was no fault of his. "His heart was perfect all his days." He did what in him lay, and his service was accepted accordingly (2Co_8:12). "The fleetest horse cannot escape from its tail."
(4) His reformation was followed by a restitution.
It was not merely destructive, as too many so-called reforms have been.
(1) He gave up to the sacristy of God the silver and gold he had taken from the Ethiopians. It was his happiness to restore to it some of the treasure of which it had been denuded in the reign of Rehoboam. (Observe: When idolatry came in, the treasures went out of the land. When idolatry was expelled, prosperity returned. Godliness has the promise of the life that now is.) His, consequently, was no cheap reform. He offered of that which cost him something (2Sa_24:24). He might have converted his spoil into drinking vessels of pure gold (1Ki_10:21), but he surrendered it to the service and keeping of the Most High.
(2) He induced his people to dedicate themselves anew to the Lord (2Ch_15:12 sqq.; cf. 2Co_8:5). This was the crown and blossom of his reformation. "They sware unto the Lord with a loud voice."
And, as the fruit of this righteous policy, we find that he enjoyed, for a part of his reign at least,
(1) quietness (2Ch_14:1)," The Lord gave him rest" (Mat_10:6)—the effect of righteousness is quietness and assurance (Isa_32:17);
(2) prosperity (Mat_10:7), and
(3) growth, in the shape of a large accession of God-fearing, law-abiding subjects. "They fell to him out of Israel in abundance when they saw that the Lord his God was with him." Not all the numerical superiority of Israel, not all its fruitful territory, availed against the attraction of a realm, in one sense a rival kingdom, where respect for God's law promised security, liberty, and peace.
But let us now observe that these reforms and this courageous piety did not exempt him from—
II. EXTERNAL TROUBLES. The quiet only lasted ten years His fenced cities did not save him from invasion. He had to encounter, first, the invasion of Zerah (2Ch_14:9), and secondly, the aggression of Baasha (1Ki_15:17). He may have been tempted to think when that overwhelming host of swart barbarians marched against him that his piety profited him nothing. He may have argued, when he saw the fortress of Ramah threatening his very capital—the city God had chosen to put His name there—that God made no difference between the righteous and the wicked, between His faithful people and the calf-worshipping Israelites. But observe: both these troubles were really blessings in disguise. Afflictions and adversities may be either punitive or disciplinary. Solomon's were of the former, Asa's of the latter class. For
(1) when Asa had learned his own weakness, and learnt whither to look for help (2Ch_14:11)—lessons both of them of singular blessedness—the Lord smote the Ethiopians. This invasion resulted in the enrichment of the country. The spoil was enormous. And the victory ministered, not to pride, but to piety (2Ch_15:8).
(2) The only result, so far as we know, of the menaces of Baasha was that that king drew upon himself an invasion of Syrians (in which it is to be observed, Dan, one of the seats of the calf worship, was smitten), and Asa gained two fortresses as a protection against future inroads (Mat_10:22). It is true that Asa betrayed a want of faith in taking the consecrated gold and silver wherewith to bribe the northern barbarians (2Ch_16:7, 2Ch_16:8), and that he was chastised for the deed (Mat_10:9), but, all the same, his generally "perfect heart" was rewarded by more than deliverance. If he ever cried with Jacob, "All these things are against me," he must have subsequently exclaimed with Joseph, "Ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good" (Gen_1:20). His troubles must have taught him this lesson, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him out of them all" (Psa_34:19).
And so we see in the dangers and assaults which this reformer underwent proofs of the loving discipline of God—trials intended for his reformation and for the chastening of his country. It is difficult at first sight to see how so brutal and hateful a thing as war can ever be for the good of any people, especially when we remember that a "victory is the next worst thing to a defeat." But those have some reason on their side who tell us that war is the purgatory of nations, and that battles in the moral are something like thunderstorms in the physical world. There are victims in either case—what hecatombs of victims in some cases—but the atmosphere is all the clearer afterwards. The campaign of Zerah probably taught him and his people to bridle their ambition, and to leave their neighbours alone; it certainly taught Asa and Israel to trust in the Lord and to cling closer to Him. They learned that "Providence does" not "always help the biggest battalions"—that everything turns on the blessing of God.£ They proved the truth of that promise," Five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight," etc. (Le Mat_26:8). Psa_20:1-9. might have been penned with reference to this war. It certainly breathes the spirit of that time. "Deo adjuvante"—this is its keynote. And this, too, is the burden of Asa's prayer (2Ch_14:11), of Azariah's prophecy (2Ch_15:2 sqq.), of Judah's praises (verses 12, 14, 15). It has been remarked that in the history of the covenant people we may see pourtrayed the trials, deliverances, etc; of the covenant soul (Keble). And certainly the prosperous reign of Asa is a picture of what a truly Christian life involves. Happy are those whose lives, in their main features, may be thus characterized: "Internal reforms," "external discipline." The three things which, Luther said, made the minister also make the man, "Prayer, meditation, and temptation." The idols must be utterly abolished by "the expulsive force of a new affection;" "the horror," the fear and horrible dread that possesses the unreconciled, must be cast out by perfect love; "everything that defileth" must be consumed by its ardent flames; the heart must be "dedicated," and then the loving correction of God will do the rest, and after we have suffered awhile, in the battle of life, in the chamber of sickness (1Ki_15:28), will make us perfect (1Pe_5:10), and grant us "quietness and assurance forever."
1Ki_15:22
And that our view of those relations, so far as it is disclosed to us by this history, may not be partial and incomplete, it is proper that we should begin the survey, not with the accession of Asa, but some two decades earlier; in fact, with the commencement of the schism. And we may learn—
I. THAT IT IS NOT TO BE WONDERED AT THAT HERESY SHOULD BE STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE. Ten tribes worshipped the calves; only two were faithful to the Lord. Jeroboam's novelties carried "all Israel" away after them. Even so "the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome have erred" (Art. 19.) Donatists, Montanists, Arians, Apollinarians—how many were the sects of the first days! And now, out of the two hundred millions of Christendom, how many are there whom with the profoundest sorrow we must pronounce either heretical or schismatical. And no wonder, for
"The search for truth is not one half so pleasant,
As sticking to the views we hold at present."
Most of our schisms have had their origin in pride and emulation; most of our heresies spring out of our corrupt human nature. It is every way pleasanter to choose among doctrines than to take them as revealed by God.
II. THAT THERE MUST, NEVERTHELESS, BE NO FIGHTINGS AMONGST CHRISTIANS. The armies of Judah were solemnly forbidden to attack those of Jeroboam (1Ki_12:24). Though a host of near two hundred thousand armed men had mustered for battle, yet they must "return every man to his house." They were reminded that the children of Israel were their "brethren," and that the division in the kingdom—not that in the Church—was ordained of God. A special messenger is entrusted with a special revelation (1Ki_15:22) to prevent the unseemly spectacle of brethren, the children of the same Father, meeting in the shock of battle. And observe that, though there was undoubtedly war at a later period between the divided branches of the Hebrew family (1Ki_14:30; 1Ki_15:6, 1Ki_15:16, etc.; 2Ch_13:8), yet it is by no means certain that these wars ever had the Divine sanction. Observe, too, that hostility and antagonism, short of actual organized warfare, is here described as "war" (1Ki_14:30, note). Now may we not justly infer—what, indeed, is certain on other grounds—that, whatever their heresies, there must be no hostilities between the divided sections of the Christian family? There have been "wars and fightings" amongst them, it is true, but this is against the will and prayer of their head (Joh_17:21; Joh_13:35; cf. 1Co_1:11; 1Co_11:18; Jas_4:1). For they are "brethren" (Mat_23:8) by a much closer bond than were the Jews. Spiritual ties are far more real and binding than those of flesh, of mere matter (Mat_12:48, Mat_12:49; Rom_16:13; Tit_1:4; Phmon Tit_1:10). And if it was unseemly and unnatural for Jew to lift up hand against Jew, how much more for members of the same body (Eph_5:30; Rom_12:5), professors of the same gospel of love? And not only the hand, but the tongue. There must be no stabbing and wounding of brethren by words any more than by swords. "There is nothing," says Whichcote, "more unnatural to religion than contentions about it." Christians have fighting enough to do without falling upon each other. There are the common enemies of the Christian life—the world, the flesh, and the devil. There are the enemies of the faith, the hosts of devilry, and uncleanness, and unbelief, and indifference. It is well when disputing about "modes of faith" that we should remember that there are untold millions of men still worshipping cows and even demons. It is well, too, that we should consider that we are none of us infallible, and may easily confound friends and foes. It has been justly said that many of our disputes are like that midnight conflict at Syracuse, where each party mistook the watchword of the other, and all was hopeless confusion (Stanley.) We must "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered," etc; it is true, but there are two ways of doing that. "It is not the actual differences of Christians that do the mischief, but the mismanagement of those differences" (P. Henry). "Nous avons eu assez de polemique," said a French ecclesiastic; "il nous reste a avoir un peu d'irenique."
III. THAT THERE MUST BE NO SACRIFICE OF TRUTH OR COMPROMISE OF PRINCIPLE FOR THE SAKE OF CONCILIATING HERETICS. Asa, like Rehoboam, was only too glad to welcome deserters from Jeroboam's Church and kingdom; his action with respect to Ramah proves that. But neither of them ever thought of accommodating the worship or polity of Jerusalem to suit the wishes or prejudices of the schismatic Israelites. To neither of them did it occur to allow that calf worship was right worship; neither would admit that there was any true Church but that of Judah, or any sanctuary but that of Jerusalem; neither could or would recognize the orders or ministrations of Jeroboam's man-made priests. In fact, it would have been impolitic, as well as unfaithful, to have done so. It was because Judah was true to its convictions, and consistently repudiated the schism, and stood resolutely on the old paths, that such numbers of pious Israelites came over to its side. Even so now, nothing but harm can come of sacrificing one iota of principle for the sake of the union of Christendom. We may be branded as illiberal and bigots if we ask for the credentials of every soi-disant minister of Christ; if we deny the name of "Church" to each of the manifold sects and societies of human origin; if we repudiate an unorganic Christianity, a religion of mere emotionalism. But all the same, we have no right to exercise a spurious charity and to give what is not ours; we have no right to surrender one jot of Catholic truth for the sake of conciliating outsiders. That would be indeed to "make a solitude and call it a peace." In that way our religion might soon be watered down so that truth and life and efficacy would all be gone, and the thin residuum would be stale, fiat, and unprofitable. Only the infidel could ultimately gain by such a process. Our answer, then, to the separatist must be his: "All that thou desirest of me I will do, but this thing I may not do." Deeply as we desire unity, we dare not purchase it at such a price. "Amicus Plato, amiens Socrates, sed magis amica veritas."
IV. THAT THERE MUST RE NO CALLING IN THE AID OF UNBELIEVERS AGAINST SEPARATED BRETHREN. This was done more than once in Jewish history, but the result was always disastrous. If Jeroboam called in the aid of Shishak against Rehoboam, he suffered himself, as we have seen (note on 1Ki_14:25), from the Egyptian invasion. Nor was Asa's appeal to Ben-hadad less ill-advised. In the first place, it betrayed a lack of faith in God; then
(2) he had to rob the Lord's treasury of the gifts he had recently dedicated thereto; and
(3) the bands of Syria, having once tasted the sweets of conquest, were ever afterwards threatening or ravaging (1Ki_20:1-43; 1Ki_22:1-53.; 2Ki_5:2; 2Ki_6:8, etc.) the Holy Land. Asa's son, Jehoshaphat, found it necessary, as he thought, to join forces with those of Israel against this very power which Asa invoked. And how often have Christians pursued the same policy. How often have the armies of the Ottomans, e.g; been employed by Christians against Christians. The cannon by means of which Constantinople was taken were cast by Christian engineers. For four centuries have Mussulman legions been largely officered by Christian renegades, and recruited from Christian lands—Albania, Wallachia, etc. The "unspeakable Turk" has only been tolerated in Europe because of the divisions of Christendom. And is not the same thing being done in another way at the present time? There are Christians who think it right to make common cause with atheists, secularists, etc; against their brethren. If the example of Asa (2Ch_16:7-9) is not decisive against such a proceeding, surely that of Jehoshaphat (2Ch_19:2) and Amaziah (2Ch_25:6-10) prove that we should neither help, nor seek help from, the ungodly. The result of such alliances, as Asa found to his cost, will be, "From henceforth thou shalt have wars." The mercenaries we have hired against one another will end by doing battle against all who bear the Christian name. The Britons who called in the Saxons to their aid presently found their new allies settled in their homes and themselves driven forth into the wilderness.
V. THAT NO OBSTACLES MUST BE RAISED IN THE PATH OF REUNION. That this should be done by the separatists need cause us no surprise. Baasha could not afford to have the highway to Judah open. His occupation would be gone if the breach were healed and the nation or the Church again became one. And, alas! there are similar "vested interests" in the perpetuation of division amongst Christians. But just as it was Asa's care to pull down the frontier fortress of Ramah, just as the stones and timber were carried away bodily by the labour of all his subjects, so should it be the great concern of the Church and of every Christian to remove the barriers which separate those for whom Christ died. The national Church, for example, should be as wide and comprehensive as possible. Sects must of necessity have narrow and restricted boundaries; for their raison d'etre is almost invariably to he found, not in the propagation of error, but in the assertion of some forgotten or neglected truth, which they have made their peculium, and treat as if it were the sum total of revelation to the neglect of the "proportion of faith." But why should we multiply our tests and articles of membership? The Apostles' Creed was thought to embody everything of necessity to salvation in the first age of the Church; and when at a later period truth had become mixed with error, the Nicene symbol was still the only test of the Christian layman. Why should it not be a sufficient test of Catholicity now? Why must we refine and define, and so make intercommunion almost impossible?
"Must it be Calvin, and not Christ?
Must it be Athanasian Creeds,
Or holy water, books, and beads?
Must struggling souls remain content
With councils and decrees of Trent?"
It is partly because we have built Ramahs round our Zion that our schisms are so many. We have insisted on forcing our shibboleths on those who could not receive them, forgetting that, however true any dogma may be in itself, still, if it is not of necessity to be believed, and we make it an essential part of our system of doctrine, it may straightway become a source of discord and division. There are many such barriers and obstacles of our own creation—sometimes in the shape of practical abuses—which require to be removed, and no Christian should be "exempt" from the work of "building silver bridges for flying enemies and golden bridges for returning friends."
VI. THAT, INSTEAD OF RAISING BARRIERS BETWEEN BRETHREN, WE SHOULD STRENGTHEN OUR DEFENCES AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY. The stones and timber of Ramah, Asa used to build Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah. Thereby the road to Jerusalem was left open to friends, whilst these two fortresses commanded it against foes. Against Baasha, if he would wage war against his kinsmen; against the Assyrian at a later date (Isa_10:28, Isa_10:29). And is there no lesson for Christians here? Too often they are fighting amongst themselves about the "infinitely little"—about the date of Easter, about unleavened bread, about the "five points," about lights and vestments, about wafer bread, or about unfermented wine in the Holy Communion—while the enemy is marshalling his forces. Intemperance, sensuality, devilry in every form, are destroying the Church's children by thousands, and her watchmen the while are fencing with each other. The siege of Jerusalem (Jos; Bell. Jud. 1Ki_5:1) is reproduced amongst ourselves. The enemy is thundering at our gates, and the Church is paralyzed by factions. We keep raising barricades in the streets of Zion whilst hostile legions are swarming on the adjoining heights. We have our Geba, our Mizpah to build, and we perversely build Ramahs instead.
VII. THAT A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND. First Samaria, then Jerusalem fell before the enemy. Christianity is now comparatively powerless for aggressive purposes; indeed, it hardly keeps pace with the population; and its enemies are asking how much longer it can stand on its defence. Divide et impera, thus have many empires fallen. True, the Catholic Church cannot perish, but national Churches have fallen again and again. There has been some talk amongst the Brahmins of sending a mission to England. And we may see in France, in Germany, a foreshadowing of what is in store for us here. "The class which has recently attained supreme political power is alienated from Christianity in its present forms." Are the Church and the seers alike to be broken up one by one? Or shall we lay aside our "fratricidal dissensions," and combine against the legion of foes—Atheism, Agnosticism, Socialism, and the rest? Of one thing we may be sure, that as long as our "unhappy divisions" last we shall never win England, much less the world, for Christ.
I. IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE WILL OF THE REIGNING KING.
1. The principle of primogeniture was not considered.
(1) Else Abijam could not have ascended the throne: for he had elder brothers, sons of Mahalath and Abihail, and we know not how many besides (see 2Ch_11:18-21).
(2) These were deliberately set aside by the choice of the king. The reason given for that choice is arbitrary. Rehoboam "loved Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, above all his wives," and therefore he "made Abijah, the son of Maachah, the chief ruler among his brethren: for he thought to make him king" (2Ch_11:22, 2Ch_11:23).
(3) For this he had precedent. We have no proof that Rehoboam was not the only son of Solomon; but Solomon was a younger son of David (see 2Sa_3:2-5; 2Sa_13:13, 2Sa_13:14), and was preferred before his elder brethren upon the designation of his father (see 2Ch_1:1-17 13, 32-35).
2. Abijam represented Rehoboam by walking in his sins.
(1) He recognized the God of Israel. This he did formally in his address to Jeroboam before engaging him in battle (see 2Ch_13:4-12). So did Rehoboam recognize the God of Israel (see 2Ch_12:10-12.
(2) "But his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father." David never followed idols; but Rehoboam forsook not the sins of Solomon, and Abijam forsook not the sins of Rehoboam.
(3) Their mixed worship was like that of the Samaritans of later times, who "feared the Lord and served their own gods" (2Ki_17:32). If this was not worshipping other gods "before the Lord," it was worshipping them "beside Him" (see 2Co_6:16). Yet—
II. THE CHOICE OF REHOBOAM HAD THE DIVINE SANCTION (2Ch_12:4).
1. Primogeniture, therefore, cannot plead Divine right.
(1) Else would not God have set aside the choice of Rehoboam in favour of his elder son, or rather, of the representative of the elder son of David?
(2) David himself was a younger son in the family of Jesse. And if we go back to earlier times, Judah, a younger son, was preferred before Reuben, in the family of Jacob. Jacob himself was chosen to the prejudice of Esau, and Isaac before him to the prejudice of Ishmael.
(3) God had His own reasons for confirming the election of Rehoboam, which, however, were different from those which moved the king.
3. God had respect to His servant David.
(1) "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord." He had no complicity with idolatry, but worshipped the one true God with pure delight. When away from the courts of the Lord he longed for them with vehement desire. What a worthy example! How it rebukes the half day worshippers of modem times!
(2) He failed only "in the matter of Uriah." That was a foul blot. How sad so grand a life should have been so darkly blurred!
(3) Yet "his heart was perfect with the Lord his God." For he heartily repented of that sin, and was forgiven (see 2Sa_12:18; Psa_32:1-5; Psa_51:1-19.) God giveth liberally and upbraideth no