Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 12

All Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. — In the case of David, we find that when he was made king over Israel, he made a league with the elders of Israel (2 Samuel 5:3). This league apparently implied a less absolute royalty than that to which he had been anointed, without conditions, over the house of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4). Furthermore, in his restoration after the death of Absalom, there appears to be some recognition of a right of distinct action on the part of the men of Israel in relation to the kingdom (2 Samuel 19:9–10; 2 Samuel 19:41–43; 2 Samuel 20:1–2). Even in the coronation of Solomon, we find a distinction made between royalty over all Israel and over Judah (See 1 Kings 1:35; and compare 1 Kings 4:1).

Accordingly, Rehoboam seems to succeed without question to the throne of Judah, but he needed to be made king by the rest of Israel, who apparently had some right to require conditions before acceptance. It is significant, however, that this ceremony was established not at Jerusalem, but at Shechem. Shechem, the chief city of Ephraim, was a place of ancient dignity (even from patriarchal times) and of singular beauty and fertile position. It naturally became the capital of the northern kingdom after the disruption. Perhaps, in this arrangement, which seems to have had no precedent, there was some omen of revolution.

For he was fled. —In 2 Chronicles 10:2, and in the Septuagint version (or, rather versions, for there is variety of reading) of this passage, Jeroboam is made to return from Egypt, on hearing of the death of Solomon, to his own city, and to be “sent for” from there. This is obviously far more probable, and might be read in the Hebrew by a slight alteration of the text.

We will serve you. —It seems evident from the tone of the narrative, and especially from the absence of all resentment on the part of the king on the presentation of these conditions, that they were acting within their right; and whatever Jeroboam’s designs may have been, there is no sign of any general predetermination of rebellion. The imposition of the burdens of heavy taxation and forced labour on the people was against old traditions, and even against the practice of Solomon’s earlier years. (See 1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 9:20–22.) To demand a removal, or alleviation of these was perfectly compatible with a loyal willingness to “serve” the new king. The demand might naturally be suggested by Jeroboam, who, by his official position, knew well the severity of the burden.

If thou wilt be a servant.—Both policies suggested show how corrupt and cynical the government of Israel had become.

For the advice of the old counselors has no breadth of policy or depth of wisdom. It is simply the characteristic advice of experienced and crafty politicians. These individuals had seen the gradual development of despotic power and still remembered the comparative freedom of earlier days. They understood at once the dangerous vehemence of popular excitement and the ease with which it may be satisfied by temporary concessions. Perhaps they also desired to defeat that private ambition, which was using the natural sense of grievance for its own purposes.

It is to give good words, and to be for the moment a servant to the people, with, perhaps, the intention of abolishing certain excessive grievances, but by no means of yielding up substantial power. Whether it was in itself more than superficially prudent, would depend on the seriousness of the grievances and the social and political condition of the people.

Thus you shall speak. —The advice of the young men—the spoiled children of a magnificent and luxurious despotism, of which alone they had experience—is the language of the arrogant self-confidence, which mistakes obstinacy for vigour, and, blind to all signs of the times, supposes that what once was possible, and perhaps good for the national progress, must last forever.

It is expressed in needlessly and absurdly offensive language; but it is, as all history shows—perhaps not least the history of our own Stuart dynasty—a not infrequent policy in revolutionary times; holding that to yield in one point is to endanger the whole fabric of sovereign power; relying on the prestige of an authority proudly confident in itself; and trusting to intimidate by threats the classes long subject to despotic oppression, and consequently despised by those who wield power. It can succeed only when popular disaffection is superficial, or when a nation is exhausted by revolutionary fanaticism and failure.