The comparatively detailed style of the narrative of the reign of Solomon is continued through chs. 12, 13, 14. The record in Chronicles, after omitting the whole account of Solomon’s idolatry and his adversaries, gives the early part of the account of Rehoboam in almost the same words as those in Kings 2 Chron. 10:1-19; 11:1-4 cf. 1 Kings 12:1-24).

 The choice of Shechem for the coronation was probably to secure the allegiance of Ephraim and the northern tribes. Shechem lay in the very center of the land, between Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal, at the site where Joshua had held a general assembly of the people (Joshua 8:30-35). It was near there that Joseph was buried (Joshua 24:32). Nearby was the site of Jacob’s well (Gen. 33:19; Gen. 37:12; John 4:5, 6; cf. Joshua 24:32).

 The record in 2 Chron. 10:2, 3, seems to imply that Jeroboam was called, not from Egypt, but from Ephraim, for Jeroboam had doubtless already returned from Egypt. Jeroboam was a recognized leader. There was just cause for grievance against the throne, and it would be only natural to present the matter on such an occasion, and to have Jeroboam participate in the proceedings.

The complaint was well founded. The people were not happy with the heavy weight of taxation and the forced draft of labor required by Solomon for his extensive public works. As superintendent of the levy of forced labor in Ephraim, Jeroboam had no doubt listened to many complaints and was probably better informed concerning the widespread dissatisfaction that existed than were other advisers of the king. The request made for a lightening of the load was fair, and it would be a matter both of justice and prudence to give ear to the people’s complaints.

 That is, till the third day, the day after tomorrow (v. 12).

Solomon’s counselors would be in a position to know the temper of the people and to give good counsel concerning the course to follow. These men were not necessarily old in years but old in experience.

 A king’s first duty to his people is to serve, not rule. If a people know that their interests are the first interests of their ruler, their hearts will be knit with his, and they will be his willing servants. Christ came into the world “not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).

Age brings experience, and wisdom increases with age. Where those who are young both in years and experience forsake the counsel of their elders, there the counsel of folly prevails.

It is perfectly proper to take counsel with the young as well as the old, but it should be remembered that the eyes of youth see not what is seen with the eyes of experience and age.

The counsel given by Rehoboam’s young companions was not that of wisdom but of rashness and arrogance. It showed no tender solicitude for the welfare of those the king had been appointed to serve, but a determination to rule regardless of the expressed will of the people. The counsel given was couched in needlessly offensive language, and was such as would not allay trouble but aggravate it. The young men mistook obstinacy for vigor, and conceit for wisdom. They failed to read the signs of the times, and their counsel made rebellion inevitable.

Thought to be a figure of speech representing whips armed with sharp hooks or points, the stings of which were unusually severe.

The purpose, of course, was to make a show of strength, but in reality it was only a demonstration of weakness and folly. Kind words come from kind, largehearted men, and lead to submission and obedience, to happiness and peace. Rough words come from little men, and excite passion and bitterness, and lead to uproar and revolt.

It must not be thought that the counsel given by the young men was the counsel of God, or that the answer given by the king was dictated by the Lord. God is a God of kindness and wisdom, but the words of the king were those of hardheartedness and folly. God disposes man to sympathy and charity, not to resentment or malice. But the Lord does bring men to judgment by permitting them to reap the fruit of their own perversity. Neither Solomon’s sins nor Rehoboam’s rashness and imprudence were from the Lord. Both were wrong, and both proceeded from a source alien to God. But the Lord in His wisdom permitted a course that punished sin with sin and folly with folly. The Lord does not, as a rule, work a miracle that counteracts the results of human passions, anger, pride, perversity, and arrogance. Without interfering with man’s free will as far as personal salvation is concerned, and without influencing causatively evil deeds on the part of unholy men, God guides wisely the courses of men and nations and accomplishes His will. Thus He makes the wrath of man to praise Him.

 The words breathe the spirit of tribal jealousy and enmity. Ephraim was arrayed against Judah; the people of the north were determined to go their way independent of the south. Sheba employed similar words in his rebellion against David (2 Sam. 20:1).

This was not necessarily a war cry, but it was a call for everyone to return to his tribe and home without acknowledging Rehoboam.

This is an expression of the deeply rooted dislike to David’s royal house. Let that house see about its own affairs and its own tribe, and leave the rest of Israel alone. They will take care of themselves independently of Judah, and will henceforth brook no interference.

 This phrase seems to have a double significance. First, it indicates that in the territory of Judah there were those who were not members of the tribe of Judah. In addition to Benjamin, which had its part with Judah, many priests and Levites and people “out of all the tribes of Israel” later forsook the north and joined themselves with Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11:12-17). Second, although Israel henceforth was to mean primarily the northern kingdom in antithesis to Judah, the phrase “children of Israel” was probably intended to remind the reader that true children of Israel were also to be found in Judah and that the northern kingdom possessed no exclusive right to this proud title.

 According to 1 Kings 4:6; 5:14, Adoniram (a lengthened form of Adoram) was over the levy. Adoram, being well versed in the grievances concerning forced labor, Rehoboam probably believed him to be the proper man to negotiate in regard to this matter. But the sight of this man, the taskmaster of the oppressed people, aroused a fresh burst of fury, resulting in Adoram’s death.

 A usual mode of death in ancient times in cases of mob vengeance. In Egypt, Moses had expressed the fear that the Egyptians might arise in wrath to stone the children of Israel (Ex. 8:26). Later the Israelites were almost ready to stone Moses (Ex. 17:4).

 David too faced the danger of such a death by an angry group (1 Sam. 30:6).

The chariot provided the most rapid means of conveyance. Improved roads made it possible to use chariots in many parts of Palestine.

 These words seem to imply that Jeroboam came on the scene only after the revolt of the ten tribes. However, according to v. 3, Jeroboam had already acted as head of the people’s delegation to Rehoboam. Some follow one of the manuscripts of the LXX which omits Jeroboam’s name in vs. 3 and 12, and make v. 20 represent his first appearance on the scene. It is, however, better to follow the Hebrew and to understand the “all Israel” of v. 1 to mean the representatives of the different tribes, and “all Israel” of v. 20 to mean the nation, which had heard from its representatives, on their return to their homes (v. 16), of the presence of Jeroboam in the country.

The news of the insurrection soon was carried throughout the realm. After setting the rebellion on foot Jeroboam probably astutely refrained from further steps, awaiting the call of the people. A great congregation was called, and Jeroboam was made king.

This phrase seems to indicate a claim on the part of the ten northern tribes that they alone constituted the true Israel.

 The tribe of Benjamin had previously been more closely connected with Ephraim than with Judah. The long feud between David and Saul, the Benjamite (1 Sam. 9:1), the wars of Joab and Abner, between the servants of David and those of Benjamin (2 Sam. 2:2, 12-31; 3:1-27), and the call to arms against David by Sheba, the Benjamite (2 Sam. 20:1), all indicate the antipathy of Benjamin against Judah. But the establishment of the capital at Jerusalem, on the border between the two tribes (Joshua 15:8; 18:16), helped to bring about a change, and henceforth the lot of Benjamin was to be one with that of Judah.

 At the time of Davi’s census Judah numbered 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9). Some time later Abijah was able to muster an army of 400,000 (2 Chron. 13:3).

 The term was used of Moses (Deut. 33:1; Joshua 14:6), and is used only rarely in the earlier or later Scriptures, including Chronicles, but it is a favorite expression of the writer of Kings. Shemaiah was the chief prophet of Judah during the reign of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 12:5-8, 15).

Civil war is generally the most deadly kind of war, its wounds the hardest to heal. God had not brought the Israelites into Canaan to destroy one another. Nor indeed had He designed that they should divide into two hostile kingdoms. The Lord could not bless the seceding ten tribes. Neither could He endorse the harsh governmental policies that Rehoboam had announced. The loss of the ten tribes was a judgment upon Rehoboam. Hence the Lord could not give His blessing to a campaign that sought by force of arms to bring those tribes back again under Rehoboam. Rather, God decreed that time should unroll the history of both kingdoms, that His condemnation of the one and His judgment upon the other, should be demonstrated as just. Zealous men are often in haste to resolve a difficult matter that involves wrongs on both sides. Such men might well ponder the lesson found in this verse.

 This city is mentioned in patriarchal history from the time Abraham first entered the Land of Promise (Gen. 12:6; 33:18; 35:4; 37:12, 13). At the time of the conquest of Canaan it became a city of refuge (Joshua 20:7; 21:21), and it was there that Joshua gathered all the tribes for a renewal of the covenant just before his death (Joshua 24:1-25). When Abimelech made himself king over Israel, he had his capital at Shechem (Judges 9:1-20), and when the city rebelled against him, it was destroyed and sowed “with salt” (Judges 9:22-45). Now the city was rebuilt as Jeroboam’s capital.

 A place east of Jordan named by Jacob after he had seen God face to face (Gen. 32:30, 31). At the time of Gideon there was a tower at Penuel, which Gideon destroyed (Judges 8:8, 9, 17). Jeroboam rebuilt the city as an outpost. A possible site is Tulul ed-dabab, on the river Jabbok, 4 1/8 mi. (6.5 km.) east of Succoth.

Jeroboam well understood the strong appeal of the worship of the Lord at the Temple in Jerusalem. If Israel remained faithful to God, and if they continued to go to Jerusalem to worship with their brethren of Judah, the hearts of the people would again be drawn together, and the kingdom once more would be united. Such an outcome certainly would have been for the common good of all. But that was not Jeroboam’s first interest.

 This was a renewal of the worship by which Israel had brought judgments on themselves in the wilderness (Ex. 32:1-35). By thus rejecting the Lord, Israel was taking a course that could end only in ruin. Disaster is inevitable when men forsake the Creator of heaven and earth for the worship of calves of gold.

 A southern frontier town of the kingdom. Bethel means “house of God,” and was named by Jacob in memory of the dream in which God appeared to him on the occasion of his flight from Esau (Gen. 28:11-22) and again upon his return (Gen. 35:8-15). It was thought to be a natural place for a rival shrine.

 A northern frontier town that had already been the site of a shrine during much of the period of the judges (Judges 18:30, 31).

That is, it became an occasion of sin to the people. In view of the far-reaching effects of the sin a fearful responsibility rested upon Jeroboam.

Some of the later manuscripts of the LXX add after Dan, “and to the other unto Bethel.” But it is probably better to take the words as they stand, implying that the people at first resorted almost exclusively to the sanctuary in Dan.

 The Levites refused to serve as priests in these idolatrous shrines, and being cut off from their sacred office, made their way to Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11:13-16; PK 101). Only people of the lowest moral standards would consent to serve as “priests for the high places and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made” (2 Chron. 11:15). The result was continually lower and lower moral standards among the people.

This was a rival feast to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem in the seventh month. There was a semblance of holding to certain forms of the old religion, but in many respects the new religion was the direct opposite of the worship of Jehovah. The question has been raised as to why the feast in Israel should be held a month later than in Judah. It may be that the break between Israel and Judah took place at this time, and that this general festival of the people was immediately instituted to give opportunity for hailing the establishment of the new regime.

 Jeroboam seems to have taken upon himself priestly as well as kingly functions. Having set aside the Levitical priesthood and consecrated new priests of his own choosing, Jeroboam could well have crowned the proceedings by assuming the role of supreme head of the unauthorized priesthood that he had created. Bethel is called the place both of “the king’s chapel” and of “the king’s court” (Amos 7:10, 13). That might indicate that the “chapel” at Bethel was his own special shrine where the king presided in religious affairs, and that it likewise had a court where he officiated in affairs of state. Shechem was the regular capital and the usual place where the king held court, but when he officiated as priest at Bethel, court was probably held at his palace there.