Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 15

Abijam. —The form of the name given in 2 Chronicles 13:0, “Abijah,” is probably correct, as having a more distinct significance. The variation here, if not (as some think) a mere false reading, may have been made for the sake of distinction from the son of Jeroboam.

Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. The Abishalom of this passage, called Absalom in 2 Chronicles 11:20, is in all probability the rebel son of David, whose mother (2 Samuel 3:3) was also named Maachah.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21–22, it seems that of all the wives (eighteen wives and threescore concubines) whom Rehoboam, following the evil traditions of his father, took, she was the favourite, and that even in his lifetime Rehoboam exalted Abijam to be ruler among his brethren.

In 2 Chronicles 13:2, she is called Michaiah and said to be the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. This shows that, as chronological considerations would indeed suggest, she must have been the granddaughter of Absalom.

She is mentioned below (1 Kings 15:13) as prominent in the evil propensity to idolatry.

Walked in all the sins of his father. —This adoption of the idolatries of Rehoboam did not prevent Abijam (see 2 Chronicles 13:4–12) from representing himself as the champion of the Temple and the priesthood against the rival worship of Jeroboam, and dedicating treasures—perhaps the spoils of his victory—in the house of the Lord. From the qualified phrase his heart was not perfect before God, however, it may be inferred that, like Solomon and Rehoboam, he professed to worship Jehovah only as the supreme God of his Pantheon; and it is a curious irony of circumstance that he should be recorded as denouncing the degradation of His worship in Israel, while he himself supported or secretly allowed the worse sin of the worship of rival gods in Judah.

Give him a lamp in Jerusalem. —Here, there is a brief allusion to the victory recorded in Chronicles, which obviously was the turning point in the struggle, saving the lamp of the house of David from extinction, and establishing Jerusalem in security. For David’s sake is, of course, for the fulfillment of the promise to David (2 Samuel 7:12–16). By virtue of the continuity of human history, the Divine law always ordains that, regarding consequences, the good deeds as well as the sins of fathers are visited on their children.

Save only in the matter of Uriah.—In this passage alone do we find this qualification of the praise of David. In the Vatican manuscript and other manuscripts of the Septuagint it is omitted. Possibly it is a marginal note which has crept into the text, or a comment of the compiler of the book on the language of the annals from which he drew.