1 Kings 12:30

1Ki 12:30 And this thing became a sin: for the people went [to worship] before the one, [even] unto Dan.

Ver. 30. For the people went to worship.] At both places. Jeroboam’s calves were no sooner up, than Israel is down on their knees. It is no marvel, saith one, if his subjects are brutish who hath made a calf his god.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Ki 12:30. This thing became a sin — An occasion of great wickedness, not only of idolatry, which is called sin by way of eminence; nor only of the worship of the calves, wherein they pretended to worship the true God; but also of the worship of Baal, and of the utter desertion of the true God, and of all sorts of impiety. The people went to worship before the one even unto Dan — Which is not here mentioned exclusively, for they went also to Beth-el, (1Ki 12:32-33;) but for other reasons, either because that of Dan was first made, the people in those parts having been long leavened with idolatry, or to show the people’s readiness and zeal for idols; that those who lived in or near Beth-el, had not patience to stay till that calf was finished, but all of them were forward to go as far as Dan, which was in the utmost borders of the land, to worship an idol there; when it was thought too much for them to go to Jerusalem to worship God in the manner he had prescribed. The reader will easily observe here, as we have already intimated, that the sin of Jeroboam and the people did not consist in worshipping strange and false gods, but in setting up images, or representations of the true God, and worshipping him under the similitude of a corporeal form, which he had himself expressly forbidden, (Exo 20:4,) and had severely punished in the case of Aaron; so that the people did not offend through ignorance, because their sacred records informed them of the terrible punishment which God had inflicted before for the like offence, whereby he made it evident how displeasing it was to him.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(30) Even unto Dan.—It has been thought that there is here a corruption of the text, and that words referring to Bethel have fallen out. But there is no sign of such variation in the LXX. (which only adds, in some MSS., “and deserted the house of the Lord”) or other versions. The reason of the mention of Dan only is probably that there the old sanctuary remained, and the priesthood was ready: hence, in this case, “the people went to worship” at once. The verses which follow describe the erection of a temple and the creation of a priesthood at Bethel, necessary before the inauguration of the new worship at what naturally became the more prominent and magnificent sanctuary. This temple is called a “house of high places,” partly perhaps from its actual position, partly to connect it with the use of “the high places” condemned in the Law. Indeed, as we have no notice of any time spent in building it, it is possible that some old “high place” was restored for the purpose.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. And this thing became a sin] Being in contradiction of the second commandment.

for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan] It appears as though by these words it was intended to shew how fully the people were led astray. To far-off Dan even did they go. This had been associated with worship aforetime, though it was idolatrous. Jdg_18:30. There was no need to point out that they went to Bethel. That had been a place of worship before, and in consequence had sacred associations. Of course they were not hard to persuade to go there. But Jeroboam’s device was successful in respect of the other shrine also.

The LXX. adds to this verse ‘and they neglected the house of the Lord.’

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah,.... The feast of tabernacles, which was on the fifteenth day of the seventh month; this was done chiefly for the sake of an alteration; though Abarbinel thinks, because the fruits of the land were not so soon ripe nor so soon gathered, in the northern parts of the land, as nearer Jerusalem, he judged this month the fittest for the feast of ingathering the fruits; and he might hope to get more people to come to his feast, when all were gathered in:

and he offered upon the altar (so he did in Bethel), sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: this he did by his priests, or rather he himself did it, see Kg1 13:4, this shows that Jeroboam made these calves for worship, and did sacrifice to them, at least as representations of God. Abarbinel, to make this agree with his hypothesis, gives this sense of the clause, that he did not sacrifice to the calves, but to God, because of them, that his kingdom, which they were a sign of, might be continued; and there being but one calf in a place, he could not be said to sacrifice to them both, but to God, because of both; or else he thinks this must be done after the people had turned aside to them, and not when Jeroboam made them. The clause in the parenthesis, "so he did in Bethel", intimates that he did the same in Bethel as in Dan, of which what is said before is spoken; that is, that he made an house of high places in Bethel also, made priests out of all the people, such as were not of the tribe of Levi, appointed the feast of the fifteenth day of the eighth month to be observed there also, and he himself offered on the altar there:

and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made: to officiate there.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

This thing became a sin - i. e., this act of Jeroboam’s became an occasion of sin to the people. The author perhaps wrote the following words thus: “The people went to worship before the one to Bethel and before the other to Dan.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Sin, almost irreparable, which brought on the ruin of the ten tribes. Though the calves were taken away along with them into captivity, the people did not return to the service of the Lord: but the greatest part imitated the conduct of the pagans, with whom they mixed; while some few returned with the tribe of Juda, and made a part of that kingdom. The Samaritans, who were sent to inhabit their country, were not of the race of Jacob. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

A sin, i.e. a cause or occasion of great wickedness among that people; not only of idolatry, which is called sin by way of eminency; nor only of the worship of the calves, wherein they pretended to worship the true God; but also of the worship of Baal, and of the utter desertion of the true God, and of all sorts of impiety and abominable sins, as is manifest from the history of that kingdom; in which there was not one good king, and very few of the people who were not guilty of heinous crimes, as the prophets witness.

The people went to worship: the king’s counsel and example seduced them, though it did not excuse their sin; and they willingly walked after this his wicked commandment, Hos 5:11.

Unto Dan; which is not here mentioned exclusively, for that they went also to Beth-el is evident from 1Ki 12:32,33, but for other reasons; either because that of Dan was first made, or best frequented, the people in those parts having been long leavened with idolatry; see Jdg 18:30; or to show the people’s readiness to comply with the king’s command, and their zeal for idols; that those who lived in or near Beth-el had not patience to stay till that calf was finished, but all of them were forward to go as far as Dan, which was in the utmost borders of the land, to worship an idol there, when it was thought too much for them to go to Jerusalem to worship God.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. This thing became a sin — It was not designed to be idolatry, but it speedily ran into it. How could it result otherwise, for it was a direct violation of the second commandment, and a likening of the glory of the invisible God to an ox that eateth grass? Jeroboam must have known the hazards of his course; but his case is only one example out of many which show how the natural heart of man will turn away from those parts of God’s word which conflict with his self-interests and desires. He probably, as we have indicated above, (note on 1Ki_12:26,) quieted his conscience by explaining away and distorting the obvious lessons of sacred history.

For the people — Rather, and the people went before the one, unto Dan. The meaning is obscure, and perhaps some words have fallen out of the text. Keil takes the one to mean the calf at Beth-el, and understands that the people even unto Dan, that is, the greater part of the people, went to the sanctuary at Beth-el. Others take the one in the sense of one of the two, and explain: The people throughout the whole kingdom, even unto Dan, resorted to one or the other of these shrines, the one, of course, which was most convenient. In this sense, unto Dan would be a shortened form of the common expression from Beersheba unto Dan, Beersheba not being named, because, perhaps, of its adherence to the tribe of Judah. 1Ki_19:3.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And this thing became a sin It was in itself sinful, for it both set at nought the express prohibition of the Decalogue, (Exo_20:4) and also disregarded the one sanctuary of God"s choice. (Deu_12:5) And it led to other sins, e.g., the intrusion of a schismatic and irregular priesthood, and the performance of unauthorized rites, and to "an ever-deepening corruption of the national faith" (Ewald). Cf. Hos_8:5 Hos_13:2. But the meaning is, it became an occasion of sin to the people ("Quod fuit postea causa gravissimi peccati Vatab.) Jeroboam made Israel to sin" (1Ki_14:16 1Ki_15:26, etc.) It is difficult to conceive, in the face of these and similar words, how any one can seriously maintain that "the church of Israel was the national church" (Stanley, 2:264): for the people went to worship before the one even unto Dan. The people frequented both sanctuaries; why, then, is that at Dan especially mentioned? Some (Rawlinson, e.g.) have suggested that the text is here corrupt, and that we should read, "before the one to Bethel, and before the other to Dan." According to others, "the one" (djah) refers to the double djah ("the one," "the other"); cf. ver. 29. They would interpret, that is, "the people went to both, even to the distant Dan" (Bahr, Thenius). Keil would force the text and understand, "the people, even unto Dan," i.e., the people throughout the whole kingdom. Similarly, Wordsworth. Ewald understands "before the one" to mean Dj"z,k i.e., as one," sc. man. On the whole it is better to take the words as they stand, literally. It is quite conceivable that, at first, the people resorted almost exclusively to the Danite sanctuary. Having been for long years a seat of worship, and having probably its "house of high places," or temple (see below), already built, it would naturally be in a position to receive worshippers some time before Bethel was prepared for that purpose. Jeroboam"s offering in person at Bethel (ver. 32) which marks the inauguration of his new ritual there, may have been partly designed to attract worshippers to a shrine, which, as being nearer Jerusalem, or for some other reason, was neglected. But the verse is patient of another interpretation. It may intend to convey that the rebellious tribes, in their defiant disregard of the old order of things, the order now represented by a hostile kingdom, went en masse to the opposite point of the compass, even to the unhallowed and hitherto despised sanctuary of the Danites. The LXX (Vat.) addition here is noticeable, "And they forsook the house of the Lord.

Ver. 30.

The Sin of Jeroboam.

What was this sin, of which, from this time forward, the historian has so much to say? It is mentioned more than twenty times in Scripture. It casts its dark shadow across fifteen reigns of the kings of Israel. Its baleful influences were felt for more than two and a half centuries. It was the prime cause (2Ki_17:21-28) of that captivity from which the ten tribes have never returned. Surely we ought to know what it was. And as one help to a right conclusion, let us first clearly understand what it was not.

I IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF REBELLION. There may have been sin in the way which the rupture with Judah was brought about, (see 2Ch_13:6, 2Ch_13:7) though that is by no means certain (notes on vers. 19, 20). But even if Israel was set upon rebellion, and even if Jeroboam had rudely and wickedly precipitated the revolt, that cannot be "the sin" of which he is here and elsewhere accused. For, in the first place, later kings could not be held responsible for Jeroboam"s conduct at the time of the disruption, i.e. , they could not commit that sin of Jeroboam; and, secondly, the disruption itself was ordained of God (1Ki_11:31 sqq.; 12:15; 2Ch_11:4) Verse 15, too, is decisive. "The cause was from the Lord." Those who sate on Jeroboam"s throne, consequently, no less than the successors of Solomon, reigned de jure Divino. The former equally with the latter were the anointed of Heaven. (2Ki_9:3, 2Ki_9:6) It was the Lord "raised up" (1Ki_14:14) Baasha, (1Ki_15:28, 1Ki_15:29) (1Ki_16:12) Jehu, (2Ki_9:6) and the rest.

II IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF GOING AFTER OTHER GODS. If this were the sin referred to here it would probably have been called "the sin of Solomon," for Solomon is twice charged with that sin, (1Ki_11:4, 1Ki_11:10) whereas Jeroboam never went after Baal, or Ashtoreth, or Milcom. It is true the calves are once called "other gods", (1Ki_14:9) but they are only so called in derision, and in 1Ki_16:31 the sin of Jeroboam is expressly distinguished from the worship of other gods. It was probably Jeroboam"s boast (see note on ver. 28), not that he was instituting a new religion, or setting up a rival Deity, but that he was worshipping the one true God in a more rational and primitive way. See Jos., Ant. 8. 8.4. And that the calf. worship was not idolatry, properly so called, is clear from this consideration, that "the sin of Jeroboam" is confined to the kingdom of Israel. Not one of the kings of Judah is ever taxed with it. And yet it was in Judah, and not in Israel, that idolatry prevailed. Of the kings of Israel, only Ahab and his two sons were guilty of idolatry; whereas of the kings of Judah only five set their faces against it. Yet the non-idolatrous kings of Israel are constantly charged with Jeroboam"s sin, and the idolatrous kings of Judah never. Polytheism, therefore, it cannot have been.

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

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

1. He chose his own places of worship. God had ordained that there should be one sanctuary for the whole nation. Both the law of Moses and the history of Israel alike taught that the religious centre of the nation should be one. From an early age it was predicted that God would choose Himself a place to put His name there. (Deu_12:13, 14 14:23) And this Divine choice had been recently and unmistakably made. He "chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved." And He built His "sanctuary," etc. (Psa_78:67-69; Psa_132:18, Psa_132:14) At the dedication of this sanctuary this choice had been publicly proclaimed. (1Ki_8:10, 1Ki_8:11; 2Ch_7:2, 2Ch_7:12, 2Ch_7:16) The whole nation then understood that God had "chosen Jerusalem to put His name there." And Jeroboam was aware of this, and was also aware that the division of the kingdom was to make no difference as to the oneness or the position of the sanctuary. To prevent misconception he was twice reminded in the message of Ahijah, his charter to the crown, that Jerusalem was "the city which God had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel". (1Ki_11:32, 1Ki_11:33) It was to be in the future, as it had been in the past, the one place of incense and sacrifice. And that Jeroboam knew it, his own thoughts (1Ki_12:26, 1Ki_12:27) reveal to us. "If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem." He is quite clear, then indeed, he could not be otherwise as to the place of God"s choice. But that place, he argues, will not do for him. Political considerations demand that he shall find a religious centre elsewhere. So he "takes counsel," and decrees ex mero arbitrio that Israel shall have three holy places instead of one, and that Bethel and Dan shall henceforward divide the honours hitherto enjoyed by Jerusalem.

1. He chose his own modes of worship. Though the way in which God should be approached had been prescribed, though every detail of the

2. Divine service had been ordered beforehand, and though he had been warned against adding aught to it or diminishing aught from it, (Deu_4:2) yet he decided otherwise. Perhaps he persuaded himself that he had good reasons for it; but all the same he chose otherwise than God had chosen. Though Exo_20:4, etc., forbade the making of graven images, yet he "made molten images". (1Ki_14:9) Though the law decreed that the sons of Aaron alone should offer sacrifice and burn incense, yet he determined to play the priest himself, and also "made him priests of the lowest of the people." Sic volo, sic jubeo, etc.

3. He chose his own times of worship. Nothing could have been more positively fixed than the date of the Feast of the Tabernacles. It was to be "the fifteenth day of the seventh month". (Lev_23:34, Lev_23:39) But this was not the day of Jeroboam"s "choice." He "devised" a month "of his own heart;" he consulted, perhaps he thought, his people"s convenience; but was there ever heretic yet that was not full of arguments, when all God asks is obedience?

In religion What dangerous error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament.

II IT WAS THE SIN OF SCHISM. It is not without reason that in the Litany heresy and schism are coupled together, for the latter springs out of the former (Justin Martyr quotes as one of the sayings of our Lord esontai scismata kai aiJreseiv. (cf. 1Co_11:18) Jeroboam"s arbitrary choice led to a division in the Jewish Church. Let us briefly consider in what way the breach in the national unity, hitherto so close and conspicuous, was effected.

1. The one centre of unity gave place to three centres of division. Hitherto, three times a year (cf. 1Ki_9:25) all the males of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, had gathered round one altar. Thither, "the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord." Now, instead of going, even from Dan, the people went to worship before the calves "even unto Daniel" The ten tribes turned their backs on Jerusalem, and sought, some of them, a sanctuary at the opposite point of the compass. Nor did those who worshipped at Bethel afford a less striking proof of disintegration, for that sanctuary was within sight of the temple mount. The two pillars of smoke ascending day by day from rival altars, but twelve miles apart, proclaimed to all that there was a "schism in the body.

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

3. The one ritual of Divine obligation was travestied by rites and ceremonies of human appointment. If the breach was widened by the intrusive priesthood, it was deepened by the unauthorized and forbidden cultus of the calves. The stranger, who came out of a far country for God"s name"s sake, (1Ki_8:41, 1Ki_8:42) to pray toward the house, found himself in the presence of rival systems, each claiming to be primitive and true, but differing so widely that he would go home to his own land, doubting whether both were not false. He would say, as others have said since, that before men compassed sea and land to make proselytes, they had better agree among themselves.

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

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

This, then, was "the sin of Jeroboam." It was not rebellion, not idolatry, but the worship of the true God in unauthorized places, with unauthorized rites, and by unauthorized ministers. Nor did it make it less a sin that it seemed to prosper. The church of Jeroboam straightway became the church of the majority. At the time of the captivity it could boast of some antiquity. (Jud_1:18:30; 2Ki_17:16) But all the same God put His brand upon it. Three miracles (1Ki 13) were wrought as a testimony against it. The voices of the prophets were raised to condemn it (Hosea, passim; Mic_6:16, etc.) But from year to year and reign to reign it flourished, and bore its baleful fruit, and then, after the schism had lasted two hundred and fifty years, while the kingdom of Judah, despite its idolatries, still retained for 185 years longer its place in the covenant land, the ten tribes were carried away to the cities of the Medes, were "scattered beyond the river" and disappeared from the page of history.

And has this sin no lessons? has its punishment no warnings for ourselves? If, as some seem to think, we may pick and choose our doctrines at pleasure; if the Scripture is of private interpretation; if we are at liberty each one to set up his own dogmas against the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of the Catholic Church; or if there is no such thing as schism: if it is never mentioned or never reprobated in the New Testament; if the Babel of sects there are over one hundred of them in this England of ours is according to the plan and purpose of our Lord; or if, again, the "form of sound words," the depositum fidei, the creeds of the undivided Church, have no authority: if they can be added to by the autocrat of Rome, or diminished from by any state, or sect, or teacher; or, finally, if there is no such thing as a "mission" of Christ"s ministers; if any man may take this honour to himself; if those who have never been sent themselves may nevertheless send others then this history is void of all meaning. But if, on the other hand, Christianity is the child of Judaism, and the Christian Church the inheritor of the principles of the Jewish; if that church is One and Catholic and Apostolic; if the faith was once for all (apax) delivered to the saints; if our Lord Christ sent His apostles even as the Father had seat Him, (Joh_20:21) if they in turn "ordained elders in every city" (Tit_1:5; cf., 2Ti_2:2) and by laying on of hands; (Act_13:8) if the tactual succession is not a mere piece of priestly assumption then assuredly the history of Jeroboam"s sin is full of meaning, and "very necessary for these times." And the prominence accorded to it in Scripture, the twenty references to its working we can understand it all when we remember that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," and that the Spirit that moved the prophets foresaw the manifold heresies and schisms of Christendom.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A sin - That is, an occasion of great wickedness, not only of idolatry, which is called sin by way of eminency; nor only of the worship of the calves, wherein they pretended to worship the true God; but also of the worship of Baal, and of the utter desertion of the true God; and of all sorts of impiety. To Daniel - Which is not here mentioned exclusively, for they went also to Beth-el, ver. 32, 33, but for other reasons, either because that of Daniel was first made, the people in those parts having been long leavened with idolatry, Judg. xviii, 30, or to shew the peoples readiness and zeal for idols; that those who lived in, or near Beth-el, had not patience to stay 'till that calf was finished, but all of them were forward to go as far as Daniel, which was in the utmost borders of the land, to worship an idol there; when it was thought too much for them to go to Jerusalem to worship God.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Even as far as Dan. At the end of the boundary of the land.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.