Jeroboam and the Man of God; by William Henry Littlejohn

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 7, 1882

Jeroboam and the Man of God;

By William Henry Littlejohn

Or, the Necessity of Exact Obedience to What God Requires.

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

In the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of first Kings is found a most graphic account of the circumstances under which the ten tribes of Israel were separated from those of Judah and Benjamin, and the events which contributed to the election of Jeroboam as king of the former tribes. From it we learn that Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, instead of hearing to the reasonable complaints of the men of Israel, who felt that they had been overtaxed and oppressed by his father, haughtily replied to them, that his little finger should become greater than his father's loins, and that whereas his father had chastised them with whips, he would chastise them with scorpions. Indignant at such usage, the ten tribes lifted the standard of revolt, elected Jeroboam king, agreeably to the prophecy of Elijah, and so completely severed the connection between the houses of Judah and Israel that they were never united again under the same government. Everything goes to show that Jeroboam was a man of genius. In his character, however, it is manifest that there was a very important defect in the matter of reverence for God. Notwithstanding the fact that Jehovah had given him the kingdom through the prophesying of Elijah, he no sooner found himself firmly seated upon his throne, than he commenced deliberately to set at naught the behests of that God who had given him his empire.

Like most monarchs, he was ambitious for the promulgation of his reign, and shrewdly perceiving that the triennial return of the people to the temple at Jerusalem would naturally tend to wean them from his government, and draw them into affiliation with Judah and Benjamin, he sought to prevent this result by erecting golden calves in Bethel and Dan, which the people were to worship in the places where they were located. Acting as high priest himself, he elected men of the baser sort to perform the office of the common priests. While officiating one day as Pontifex Maximus, God, offended at the blasphemy of his course, sent a prophet to predict, in the presence of Jeroboam, the overthrow of the altar on which he sacrificed, and the burning thereupon of the bones of his priests at some future time, which prophecy was fulfilled about 340 years later, in the reign of Josiah. Jeroboam, haughty as ever, reached out his hand in the act of arresting or commanding to be arrested the prophet of God. Suddenly that arm and hand became so fully withered that he could not draw them back again to their original position, until the prophet had prayed for his deliverance.

But it was not to the more salient points of his blasphemous course that we wished at this time to call attention. The subject which we wish to consider at present is found in the matter of the appointment of the annual feast recorded in verses 32, 33, chap. 12. These verses read as follows: "And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel; and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense."

From the foregoing it is manifest that it was the deliberate design of the king to institute a feast bearing a close resemblance in character to the autumnal feast, or feast of tabernacles, annually celebrated at Jerusalem, and yet varying from it in point of time, about a month. When considering this departure it will be observed that the inspired penman speaks of it as a feast which took place in a month, which he, i. e., the king, "had devised of his own heart." This language is significant in a very high degree. From it it becomes manifest that there is a wide difference between doing what God tells us to do in his own appointed time, and doing it at another period selected the better to suit our convenience or taste. When the latter course is pursued, the individual so doing would be guilty, like Jeroboam, of the devising of the month (i. e., of the time), of his own heart. On this subject Adam Clarke offers some suggestive remarks which we append. "The Jews held their feast of tabernacles on the 15th day of the seventh month; Jeroboam, who would meet the prejudices of the people as far as he could, appointed a similar feast on the 15th day of the eighth month; thus appearing to hold the thing, while he subverted the ordinance." Note on 1 Kings 12:32. We think that all will, in common with Mr. Clarke, unite in reprehending the course of the king of Israel in the matter of changing the time of the occurrence of the autumnal feast, as well as in the other irreligious acts to which he became a party.

Right here, however, we wish to point a moral, and set home an argument. If it was wicked for Jeroboam to tamper with the celebration of God's appointed feasts, would it not be equally so to tamper in the matter of the time of the celebration of any other institution which by divine appointment is fixed upon a given day? If so, then we inquire what justification our orthodox friends, who admit that the seventh day was originally ordained by God to be a Sabbath of rest, can offer before his judgment-bar for attempting to change the same by substituting for the observance of the seventh day of the week that of the first? It seems to us that there is little if any difference between the guilt of refusing altogether to obey God's commandments and venturing to try to obey them at a different time, or in a different manner from that specified.

That we are right in this, and that God is a God who insists upon exact obedience in every particular, we wish to prove by calling attention right here to an illustration of that point found in the immediate connection with the record of the transaction of Jeroboam. In the following chapter, i. e., the 13th, we have an extended account of the manner in which the prophet of God fulfilled the mission devolving upon him in the matter of condemning the apostasy and sacrilege of the king of Israel. God commissioned him to go to Bethel, and, in the presence of the people, while Jeroboam in his capacity of high priest was making an offering upon the altar, to utter these words: "O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee." 1 Kings 13:2. With a courage almost unequaled, the man of God, in the presence of thousands, of his enemies, declared his solemn message of warning.

Had the record ended there, his course would have commanded our most profound admiration. But let us see how the affair came out. Before entering upon his journey, God had strictly enjoined upon him that he should not eat bread nor drink water at Bethel, nor return by the way by which he had gone to the place. See chap. 13, verse 17. After the king's hand had been restored fully, through motives of gratitude or curiosity he invited the seer to go home with him and refresh himself, promising him that he would give him a reward. Verse 17. Now hear the response: "If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place." Verse 8. This was a noble response indeed. Well would it have been for the prophet if he had ever afterward acted with the same courage. Alas for human nature, however! This man, who could neither be cajoled nor intimidated by an outspoken enemy of the Lord, was at last allured into sin by one who came to him in the name of a servant of the most high God.

Another prophet, an aged man, hearing of the wonders performed by the seer whom the Lord had sent to Jeroboam, saddled his ass, and, pursuing him on the highway, at last found him sitting under an oak. He, too, extended to him an invitation similar to that offered by Jeroboam. But, No, the man of God, "I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee; neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place; for it was said to me by the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest." Verses 16, 17. The other prophet, not to be thwarted in his design, now frames a lie in his own heart, and tells the man of God to Jeroboam, that he, too, is a prophet of the Lord, and that an angel had spoken to him on the subject. Here are his words: "I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring back with thee thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water." Verse 18. The context states that this was a sheer fabrication. No angel of God had said aught to him on the subject. Nevertheless, the courageous prophet who so stoutly refused the extended hospitality of Jeroboam, at last yielded to the overtures of one who came to him with a lie in his mouth, though claiming to be a prophet of the Lord, and returned to his house and took up his lodging there.

But how did the Lord regard this transaction? Let the inspired record declare: "And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back; and he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulcher of thy fathers. And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him; and his carcass was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcass. And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcass cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcass; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. And when the prophet that brought him back heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord; therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him." Verses 20-26.

In the foregoing we have the record of God's condemnation of the course of the man whom he had commissioned to go to Bethel, and that of the visitation of his wrath upon him for his disobedience. Do you say that the Lord was harsh, unreasonable, and unjust? Would you then impeach the God of the Bible? Certain it is that he did visit the judgments recorded here in the manner laid down and for the cause assigned, upon the man who was slain by the lion. Do you reply that the man was deceived by the falsehood of one who came to him in the name of a prophet? I answer, Very true; but add, that men are sometimes responsible for having been deceived. God had told the man whom he sent to Jeroboam that he was in no wise to take up his lodging in that place. The command was just as explicit as words could make it. It was therefore the business of him to whom the command was given to carry it out to the letter until the same God who gave him the command had, with equal explicitness and emphasis, revoked the same. Had he done this, he would have been safe. Unhappily for him, however, instead of waiting for an explicit "Thus saith the Lord" from God himself, he allowed himself to be deceived by the utterances of an irresponsible party, whom God had never commanded him to listen to, and whom the devil undoubtedly controlled in the matter under consideration.

The remarks of Adam Clarke upon this subject are so sound that we cannot refrain from giving them below. Comparing the case of the prophet with that of Abraham when required to offer up his only son Isaac, and his subsequent release from this duty, Mr. Clarke goes on to say:—

"Thus much may be said in vindication of the man of God. But if this be so, why should he be punished with death, for doing what he had reason and precedent to believe might be the will of God? I answer, He should not have taken a step back, till he had remission of the clause from the same authority which gave him the general message. He should have had it from the word of the Lord himself, in both cases, as Abraham had, and not taken an apparent contradiction of what was before delivered unto him, from the mouth of a stranger, who only professed to have it from an angel, who pretended to speak unto him by the word of the Lord. In this, and in this alone, lay the sinfulness of the act of the man of God who came out of Judah." Note on 1 Kings 13:19.

Here we must bring our remarks to a close. Before doing so we wish to appeal once more to that numerous class of observers of the Sunday Sabbath, who hallow that day while admitting that God has positively commanded the observance of another, thereby proving either that they claim the ability to change for themselves the time for the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord to another day, which better suits their convenience, or else that they hold that God is such an one that he will tolerate in them a disregard of what he commanded in point of time, if only they will obey him in regard to the manner in which they shall hallow the Sabbath which they have selected for themselves. Where, we inquire, have they obtained their conceptions of the authority of Him who sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and taketh up the isles as a very little thing. It is said in the statute book which he hath given us, that we should "tremble at his word." It is, on the contrary, nowhere said that we should treat that word with contempt. To attempt to change the statute of an earthly ruler, in the particular of the time at which the requirements are to be carried out, would be to offer a palpable affront to the dignity of that ruler. It would be difficult indeed to reconcile him to such a disregard of his sovereignty. But will the Great Ruler of the universe be less jealous of his right to prescribe respecting the time at which certain things are to be done or not to be done? To those who think that it will be safe to conclude that he would, at least in the matter of the Sabbath, we say, Remember Jeroboam, and the month of which it is said "he devised of his own heart." Again; we suggest to them that it would be well to remember the case of the man of God who was sent to Bethel; for if the Lord did not excuse him, he surely will not excuse them, since the man of God at least had for his action the authority of one who once had been a prophet of the Lord, while they cannot show a single word which ever fell from the lips of any man who was either inspired at the time or ever had been inspired, favoring the idea either that the first day of the week is the Sabbath, or that its substitution for the seventh day would be justified under any circumstances by Jehovah. The nearest approach they can make to it will be found in the decrees of the "Man of Sin," or the pope of Rome, who both claims that he has the power to change the Sabbath, and that he has done so by transferring it from the last to the first day of the week.*

Allegan, Mich.