1 Kings 22:52

Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

Jeroboam

We have here--

I. A bad man.

1. He was low in origin. Son of one of Solomon’s servants, whom the king, finding industrious, made a ruler. His evil character soon became manifest.

2. He formed the ambitious design of usurping the throne. When his design was discovered, he fled to Egypt.

3. At Solomon’s death he returned to Jerusalem, proclaimed himself king, and was followed by the ten tribes.

4. He was, notwithstanding, a mighty man of valour. We have--

II. A bad man raised up by God for a specific purpose. This purpose was the fulfilment of the curse pronounced on David. Some of God’s most powerful agents are the wicked. The grandest of His designs have been accomplished by the vilest of the earth.

III. An instrument of God using his position for evil. “The son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” This is the description always given to him afterwards. There is no more terrible epithet to be applied to man. Fearful is the condition of him who steps up to the height of his ambition on the blood of immortal souls.

IV. A crafty, wise man profiting by the folly of another. Rehoboam and Jeroboam were both bad, but Rehoboam lacked the craft and skill of his enemy. Had Rehoboam taken the advice of the wise man, he might have held his position and his kingdom. He missed his chance, and Jeroboam seized the opportunity. It is the tide taken at the turn that enables the wise to surmount all difficulties. (Homilist.)

The extent of man’s responsibility for the sins of his neighbour

I. With respect to parents. In the workings of God’s providence it shall be so arranged that wicked parents shall entail on their children the consequences of their sins. We see that it is the Divine economy that parents are, in a great measure, accountable for the sins of their children. In a physical sense we have this truth daily proved before our eyes; for we see the sad effects of disease haunting, as it were, a family in consequence of the dissipation and wickedness of a father or mother. We likewise see children reduced to poverty, and thrown amid various temptations which, so to speak, do not properly belong to them--would not have been theirs, that is, but for the evil course of parents, who by extravagance, or worse, have made beggars of their children. Apply it now practically to the courses of business and pleasure, and see where your duty lies. In respect of business, it is clear that no parent must follow any unlawful calling, because by this he is at all times setting before his Children the examples of open wickedness. But he must also see that, in choosing an occupation or business for his children, he choose one not only lawful in itself, but which will not be the means of tempting the child to commit wickedness. You are responsible to God for the education of your children. If they grow up ignorant, who can be to blame but yourselves? And you are responsible too for the right education of your children; not merely that they shall be taught the simple rudiments of everyday instruction, but that they be taught the “beginning of wisdom,” which is “the fear of the Lord.” You are commanded in God’s Word to bring them up in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Then, again, in respect of pleasure, who but you are answerable that you provide for your children proper amusements? If you lead worldly lives, and lead your children into all kinds of evil gaiety and dissipation, who is answerable? The providing of lawful amusements for young people--lawful, that is, according to the Word of God--is a most important part of education; for every one knows the soul-destroying evils which result from wrong amusements.

II. Masters. The responsibility of the servant is very great that he obey his master; but, of course, the responsibility of the master towards the servant is of a higher degree, because authority is his; and it is in his power to use his influence for good or evil. The servant is bidden to obey the master in all things lawful. But servants are not always judges of what is lawful, and what not. Masters have it in their power, with the greater number of their servants, to make them do What is wrong. Then with respect to pleasure. Surely a master is most responsible that his servants do not with his knowledge indulge in any unlawful amusements. The servant under his roof is a part and parcel of his family; and, while it s his duty to say with Joshua, “As for me and my house we will serve the Lord,” he must take care that the Sabbath is not broken by his servants taking unlawful pleasure on that day, any more than by doing their business.

III. And now, apply this subject to superiors. If one man by his influence, or his authority, of whatever kind it may be, throws an obstruction in the heavenward way of his neighbour, leads him astray by temptation, or deceives him by his conduct, or compels him to do what is wrong, he then surely is in that most fearful position of the man by whom an offence has come to his neighbour, and against whom the woe of God is denounced. If in matters of business we in any way cause others to do what is wrong; if by our example we indirectly make them commit sin, or by Our precept say that in business honesty and truth are of little or no consequence, or by our authority we make those under us tell lies for our advantage, or do what is dishonest, we then put stumbling-blocks in our neighbours’ way, and the woe of the Almighty is hanging over our heads. (R. H. Davis.)