Original Meaning

King Rehoboam (10:1–12:16)

THE SUMMARY OF REHOBOAM’S reign in Chronicles is three times longer than the version found in 1 Kings 12:1–24 and 14:21–31. By way of literary subgenres, the narrative account of Rehoboam’s reign is comprised of historical story (2 Chron. 10:1–19), two reports (Rehoboam’s early success, 11:1–23; Shishak’s punitive raid, 12:1–12), and a concluding regnal résumé (12:13–16). Irony runs thick in the story, as seen in the emphasis on Rehoboam’s “rejection” of the advice he seeks (as a courtesy?) from the council of the elders and his “rejection” by his own people. According to Williamson, the account is structured according to a thematic pattern that begins with failure, is followed by success through obedience, is then undone as a result of disobedience, and finally is climaxed by a partial restoration through self-humbling.1

The story of Rehoboam’s foolish decision documents the shattering of the ideal of “all Israel” and concludes with the thought that the people of Israel now exist as a house divided. Sadly, this state of affairs will remain as such until both northern and southern kingdoms are swallowed up by the ancient superpowers of Assyria and Babylonia respectively.

Israel Rejects the Davidic Dynasty (10:1–11:4)

Israel rejects the Davidic dynasty (10:1–11:4). The opening section of Rehoboam’s reign describes the split of Solomon’s kingdom into the rival northern and southern monarchies of Israel and Judah respectively. The event sets the stage not only for the reign of Rehoboam but also for the rest of 2 Chronicles. The Chronicler’s version closely follows 1 Kings 12:1–24. His omission of the material in 1 Kings 11 helps explain the abrupt change in the political climate of the united monarchy at Rehoboam’s succession. He assumes his audience’s knowledge of such earlier events as these: Solomon’s decline as a result of idolatry (11:1–13), Ahijah’s prophecy against the Davidic dynasty and the divine appointment of Jeroboam as a rival king (11:26–39), and Jeroboam’s asylum in Egypt as a fugitive (11:40).

The genre of the literary unit may be termed “historical story,” that is, a self-contained narrative recounting a particular event and how it happens.2 The historical story tends to demonstrate considerable literary sophistication, including the development of a plot (the continuation of the Davidic monarchy), conflict (the threat to the unity of Israel), characterization or character development (as seen in Rehoboam’s interaction with the two groups of advisers), and even subplots (the intervention by prophets of God, e.g., Ahijah [10:15] and Shemaiah [11:1–4]).

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex sociopolitical situation, a combination of interrelated factors make taxation an issue. The loss of revenue from satellite states that regained their autonomy during the latter years of Solomon’s decline deplete the royal treasuries (1 Kings 11:14–25). The support of the multilayered bureaucracy of Solomon’s administration suck vast amounts of resources from the general populace (4:20–28). Finally, all this is compounded by the extravagance and waste characteristic of Solomon’s social and economic policies (10:14–22).

By definition, centralized government is parasitic; that is, it must exist off the revenues it collects from the people governed. When faced with a budget crisis, any centralized government has but two options: raise taxes or reduce spending. But as Selman reminds us, when read as complementary records of the division of the united monarchy, both sources concur that Solomon, Rehoboam, and Jeroboam all share in the blame: Solomon does impose a “heavy yoke” on Israel (2 Chron. 10:4, 9–11, 14), Jeroboam does lead the northern tribes of Israel in revolt (10:19; cf. 13:6–7), and Rehoboam does reject the wise advice of the elders (10:6–8, 13).3

The Israelite Tribes Assemble at Shechem (10:1–4)

The Israelite tribes assemble at Shechem (10:1–4). It was customary for a new Israelite king to receive the formal approval of the people at a national assembly. David was acknowledged as king by “all Israel” at Hebron after Saul’s death (1 Chron. 11:1). Solomon was anointed and installed as king by the assembly of “all Israel” in Jerusalem (28:1, 8; 29:22–23). Here Rehoboam travels for his public coronation to Shechem (2 Chron. 10:1)—a strategic military, political, and religious center for Israel from ancient times. Both Abraham and Jacob built altars there (Gen. 12:6–7; 33:18–20), and Joshua enacted a covenant-renewal ceremony there after the initial victories of the Canaanite conquest (Josh. 24).

Sensing possible unrest during his transition to power, Rehoboam may be hoping the long Israelite tradition associated with this site will contribute to easing political tensions. The reference to “all Israel” in this context signifies the full number of the tribes. Clearly the Chronicler has telescoped the sequence of events resulting in Jeroboam’s presence at the assembly for the public coronation of Rehoboam. No doubt Jeroboam was monitoring the situation from afar (whether by means of formal channels through Pharaoh Shishak or informally by sympathetic Israelite couriers) and so makes his way to Shechem during the interim period between the national mourning over Solomon’s death and the installation of Rehoboam as his successor.

Because of his earlier commissioning by the prophet Ahijah, Jeroboam is dubbed as spokesman for “all Israel” (10:3, here the phrase refers to the northern tribes that will soon constitute the northern kingdom). Two issues of primary concern must be settled in order for the northern tribes to guarantee loyalty to the new king: “harsh labor” (i.e., forced labor gangs) and a “heavy yoke” (i.e., taxation, 10:4). The request is not unreasonable, as the terms used to describe the “harsh labor” and the “heavy yoke” are the same as those used to depict the oppression the Hebrews experienced under the Egyptian pharaoh prior to the Exodus (cf. Ex. 5:9; 6:6–7, 9).

A logistical survey also supports the complaint of the northern tribes, since for ten months of every year the northern administrative districts supplied the tons of provisions needed to sustain the centralized bureaucracy (located in the south; cf. 1 Kings 4:22–28). Obviously, the northern administrative districts have tired of a one-way flow of resources that has only led to greater impoverishment. (As an aside, the situation is not unlike that of my own state of Illinois, where the down-state taxpayers frequently complain that they see little benefit in their districts from state taxation because the lion’s share of their tax dollars end up in the budgetary column of the “money-pit” known as Chicago.)

God had built the release of debt and servitude into the calendar through his law (the sabbatical and Jubilee years, cf. Lev. 25). Curiously, however, the number of years decreed for the “Sabbath rest” of the land suggests that neither of these were ever practiced by the kings of Israel or Judah (cf. 2 Chron. 36:21; i.e., the seventy years of Hebrew exile from the land of covenant promise implies that sabbatical year had not been kept for nearly five centuries—coinciding roughly with the beginning of the monarchy in Israel).

Rehoboam Consults with His Advisers (10:5–11)

Rehoboam consults with his advisers (10:5–11). The story of Rehoboam’s consultation with his royal advisers is well known. The northern tribes demand some modification of the king’s forced labor requirements and a reduction in taxes as a condition for fealty to the Davidic monarchy. The conditional nature of the proposal from the tribal representatives indicates they are looking for more than words—they seek a diplomatic solution resulting in a pact. The three-day delay (10:5) buys time for Rehoboam to consider his options and provides a “cooling off” period for the party bringing the grievance.

Rehoboam consults two groups of royal advisers. The first is a cohort of elders left over from Solomon’s reign (10:6). These men held official positions in the cabinet of the royal court as sages, an office that was highly respected in the political circles of the ancient world. They achieved status by virtue of their age and years of civil service. The “young men who had grown up” with Rehoboam comprise the second advisory council. These men are contemporaries of the king, perhaps other royal princes, half-brothers of Rehoboam, or “junior-level” civil servants. Some see a bicameral system of authority operative in the monarchy, whose counsel to the king shapes government policy, although this remains speculative.

The advice of Solomon’s elders is conciliatory—win their approval and earn their support by “doing good” or “being kind” (10:7). A “favorable answer” to the assembly at Shechem would be a wise move, a gracious gesture, and a culturally appropriate response for the new king. The advice of Rehoboam’s cronies (10:8–9), by contrast, threatens the implementation of an even more severe corvée and taxation policy against the northern tribes—a policy that is carefully recorded and includes much repetition, suggesting thoughtful deliberation rather than a casual “coin flip” (10:8b–11). A certain irony or even contempt may be seen in the advice of the “young men,” since wisdom is found among the aged (Job 12:12).

Rehoboam is not so young as inexperienced (he is forty-one years old at his accession; 12:13). Nothing in chapter 10 suggests that he is especially malicious or cruel—only foolish. Whether out of fear that he may appear weak or for the sake of pragmatism, given the need to keep the machinery of the bureaucracy humming, he rejects the good advice of the elders and follows the bad advice (10:14). Thus, he answers his northern kinsmen harshly (10:13). The yoke, a symbol of servitude, will be made heavier (10:14a); the scourge or whip, a goad for lazy animals and a symbol of punishment for stubbornness and rebellion, will inflict even greater pain (10:14b). The representatives of the northern tribes need to hear no more.

The Division of Israel and Judah (10:12–19)

The division of Israel and Judah (10:12–19). After the three days specified for reaching a decision have elapsed, Jeroboam and his retinue and Rehoboam and his entourage reconvene the assembly of “all Israel” at Shechem (10:12). It is interesting to note that David’s coronation lasts three days and the celebration includes feasting as part of a covenant meal, sealing a pact or treaty between the tribes (cf. 1 Chron. 12:39). This lends further support to the idea that the three-day delay by Rehoboam in responding to the complaints of the northern tribes is meant to salvage a pact or treaty formalizing the loyalty of all the tribes to the new king.

Twice we are told that Rehoboam rejects the counsel of the elders to show leniency and to honor the demands of the disgruntled workers in the labor corvées (10:8, 13). Instead, he utters the advice offered by his contemporaries and venomously threatens even harsher treatment than the workers knew under his father—the sting of his whip will seem like that of the scorpion.

A key theological interpretation of developments resulting in the “meltdown” of the united monarchy is found in the Kings’ parallel and is repeated by the Chronicler. The biblical historians note that this “turn of events was from God” (10:15a; cf. 1 Kings 12:15). The Chronicler connects his commentary to Ahijah’s prophecy predicting the split of Solomon’s kingdom as punishment for his sin of idolatry—thus assuming his audience’s knowledge of the story (2 Chron. 10:15b; cf. 1 Kings 11:29–40). This approach fits a pattern in Chronicles that associates crucial moments in Israel’s history with what God has said through his prophets in an effort to demonstrate his absolute sovereignty as the Lord of history (cf. 1 Chron. 11:2; 17:13–15; 2 Chron. 36:22–23).4

In light of theological review provided by the biblical historian, we can rightly conclude that the northern tribes are not reprehensible in their role in splitting the united monarchy. Rather, they become odious to God and the biblical historians because of their subsequent sin—idol worship. In view of Ahijah’s prophecy to Jeroboam, the division of Solomon’s kingdom may be inevitable, but it is certainly not irreversible—the rival kingdom is designed to punish the house of David only temporarily (cf. 1 Kings 11:39).

The repetition of Rehoboam’s refusal to “listen” to the people further underscores the intransigence of the king (10:15–16). The poetic fragment that commemorates the split of the united monarchy is the traditional rallying cry of the northern tribes (cf. 2 Sam. 20:1). What a stark contrast between the taunt tossed at Rehoboam, “What share do we have in David?” and the vote of confidence King David received earlier from defectors to his band of mercenaries from the northern tribes, “We are yours, O David!” (1 Chron. 12:18).

The clause “so all the Israelites went home” signifies both the rejection of Rehoboam in the act of dismissal and also the finality of the decision—the negotiations are over (10:16d). The identification of both the northern and the southern tribes as “Israelites” is significant (10:16–17). They are all still the “one people” of God despite the rift between the “house of David” and the “house of Israel” (i.e., the northern tribes). This fact is important to the Chronicler’s message of hope for God’s restoration of postexilic Judah because it is dependent on the unity of all the Israelites living in the land.

Adoniram (10:18)—or Adoram, as he is known from the Kings’ parallel (1 Kings 12:18)—is one of Jeroboam’s successors as an overseer of the forced labor gangs established by Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 11:28). Selman has critiqued Rehoboam’s effort to make amends and restore tribal unity as “pathetic.”5 Knowing full well that the patience of the northern tribes has worn on the issue of forced labor, the king sends the cabinet official in charge of the forced labor gangs on a mission of reconciliation (10:18a). The “secretary of labor” is promptly stoned to death by the “civil servants” under his charge (10:18b). Apparently Rehoboam has accompanied Adoniram on the peace initiative because he barely escapes with his life from the unspecified location of the meeting (10:18c).

The term “rebellion” (pšʿ, 10:19) may not be simply a neutral term describing the separation of the northern and southern tribes. Jeroboam and the northern tribes are in rebellion against Yahweh in the sense that they have rejected the divinely ordained Davidic covenant. The phrase “to this day” (10:19) is copied from 1 Kings 12:19 and basically means “from then on,” given the historian’s chronological perspective. This is one of the few instances where the expression is still applicable to the Chronicler’s time (cf. also 1 Chron. 5:26).

Shemaiah Brokers Peace between Israel and Judah (11:1–4)

Shemaiah brokers peace between Israel and Judah (11:1–4). The Chronicler omits the reference to the coronation of Jeroboam as king of “all Israel” (i.e., the ten northern Hebrew tribes, 1 Kings 12:20), although this is implicit in the expression “to regain the kingdom for Rehoboam” (2 Chron. 11:1). Apart from this, Chronicles closely adheres to 1 Kings 12:21–24. The civil war that later characterizes the first fifty years of coexistence of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah is averted early on by prophetic intervention (2 Chron. 11:2–4, though see 12:15, which reports “continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam”).

Shemaiah is one of several preclassical prophets mentioned briefly in the Old Testament historical books. No collections of their oracles have been preserved, only extracts of sermons and prophecies—as in the case of Shemaiah’s message to Rehoboam (11:3–4; note the reference to “the records of Shemaiah the prophet” cited in the concluding regnal résumé, 12:15). This time Rehoboam heeds the advice offered, without asking for a “second opinion.” It is unclear what motivates his receptivity to the prophetic message—whether the ominous threat of Egyptian invasion prompting his fortification of strategic cities in Judah (11:5), the pang of conscience in the admonition not to wage war against “brothers” (11:4; cf. 28:11), or, most likely, the realization that the split of the united monarchy is the Lord’s “doing” (11:4; cf. 10:15). The kingdom is God’s to grant to whom he wills, not Rehoboam’s to regain by force. Clearly God’s will for the divided kingdom is peace because the northern tribes are as capable of repentance as the southern tribes are of apostasy.6

Rehoboam’s impetuous response to muster troops and wage war to counter Jeroboam’s coup calls to mind nuggets of Solomonic wisdom. Earlier Rehoboam sought advice but listened to foolish counsel (10:5–11). Here Rehoboam seeks no advice but plans his own course—only to have the Lord “determine his steps” (Prov. 16:9). But in heeding Shemaiah’s word, Rehoboam begins to act wisely by listening to advice and accepting instruction (Prov. 12:15; 19:20).

The references to “Judah and Benjamin” are both tribal (11:1) and geographical (11:3). The accuracy of the tally of troops mustered in Judah (180,000 militia) is sometimes challenged. The number, however, does not appear unreasonable, given the muster of 470,000 militia in Judah according to David’s ill-advised census (1 Chron. 21:5) or the 580,000 militia assembled by King Asa (2 Chron. 14:8). The call “to your tents” is a declaration of rebellion by the northern tribes against Rehoboam (10:16). Shemaiah’s call to “go home” is an appeal to Judah to abandon the plans for war against Israel (11:4a). Rehoboam and Judah accept God’s will as spoken by his prophet and turn back from the campaign against their northern tribesmen (11:4b).

Judah Supports Rehoboam (11:5–17)

Judah supports Rehoboam (11:5–17). The passage divides neatly into two sections, a summary of Rehoboam’s defensive measures against foreign invasion (11:5–12) and the support Rehoboam received from the northern tribes after the split of the united monarchy (11:13–17). The unit continues the emphasis on God’s reward for faithfulness and introduces for the first time the religious apostasy of Jeroboam (perpetuated by all the rulers of the northern kingdom).

Dillard notes that Jeroboam’s return from asylum in Egypt under Pharaoh Shishak’s protection “would be ample enough stimulus for a fortification program.”7 The list of cities reinforced as military outposts and stocked with provisions and weapons are strategically located, each defending important routes into the heart of Judah. Yet the line of fortresses enclose a rather limited defensive perimeter, suggesting that Rehoboam is confident of holding only the Shephelah and the Judean hill country—“a de facto concession of territory and the demise of the Solomonic empire.”8 Shishak’s invasion of Judah via the coastal highway and the Negev confirm the weakness of Rehoboam’s position, for he captures the fortified cities of Judah (12:4).

The report of priests and Levites migrating from Israel to Judah after the split of the united monarchy offers a southern kingdom perspective on the false worship centers established in the northern kingdom by Jeroboam (11:13–17; cf. 1 Kings 12:26–33). These priests and Levites find themselves “disenfranchised” as a result of the alternative shrines erected by Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel. The reference to the “goat and calf” idols recalls the golden calf episode after the Exodus (Ex. 32:1–10; Deut. 9:16). Jeroboam’s calf gods probably represent the syncretism of the Egyptian Apis (bull god) and Hathor (cow goddess) cults and Canaanite religion, which often depict deities standing on calves or bulls as symbols of their power and fertility. The goat idols are probably demons or satyrs in the form of male goats; such worship was expressly forbidden in the law of Moses (Lev. 17:7; cf. Deut. 32:16–17).

The Levites are probably rejected as candidates for religious service in Jeroboam’s “calf cult” because they remain loyal to the Jerusalem temple as the legitimate worship center for all Israelites. It remains unclear if these “defectors” from Jeroboam’s idol worship abandon their properties in Israel and take up permanent residency in Judah or simply observe the pilgrimage festivals in Jerusalem (11:14). Their example prompts other Israelites from the northern tribes to join them in worshiping the Lord in Jerusalem (11:16). Interestingly, these Israelites have “set their hearts on seeking the LORD,” something King Rehoboam ultimately refuses to do (12:14).

The phrase “the God of their fathers” (11:16) is suggestive, almost an implicit censure of Jeroboam’s gods because they have no standing in Israel’s history. The influx of loyal priests and Levites and faithful Israelites from the northern tribal districts strengthens Rehoboam’s rule and bolsters morale in Judah (11:17a). For a brief time, unfortunately only three years, the kingdom of Judah demonstrates faith in God and obedience to his commandments after the manner modeled by David and Solomon (11:17b).

Rehoboam’s Family (11:18–23)

Rehoboam’s family (11:18–23). The report concerning the family of Rehoboam is unique to Chronicles. The insertion of the genealogical material may explain the cryptic reference to the records of Iddo the seer “that deal with genealogies” in the regnal résumé (12:15). Most biblical scholars recognize Mahalath (11:18) as a second cousin to Rehoboam. Since her father, Jerimoth, is nowhere mentioned as a son of David, presumably his mother is one of David’s concubines (cf. 1 Chron. 3:9). Mahalath’s mother, Abihail (2 Chron. 11:18), is the daughter of David’s oldest brother, Eliab (cf. 1 Chron. 2:13). This means her own parents are also second cousins within the family of Jesse.9 Nothing is known of Mahalath’s three sons (2 Chron. 11:19).

There is some question as to the identity of Maacah, Rehoboam’s beloved wife (11:21). It seems likely that she is the granddaughter of David’s son Absalom by his daughter Tamar (given Absalom’s untimely death, cf. 2 Sam. 14:27). A quick recall of Absalom’s own parentage reveals his mother’s name was Maacah as well, a princess from Geshur whom David married to seal an alliance with King Talmai (1 Chron. 3:2). The Chronicler reports the practice of polygamy in the Davidic dynasty as a matter of fact—apparently accepting the cultural convention (despite the Mosaic prohibition against kings taking many wives, Deut. 17:17). Thompson appropriately reminds us of the tragic aspect of polygamy in the inevitable favoritism shown to a particular wife in the harem.10 Typically in such marriages in the Old Testament, favoritism bred jealousy, jealousy hatred, and hatred too often resulted in destructive behavior patterns.

It should be noted, in addition to his own eighteen wives and sixty concubines (11:21), Rehoboam is responsible for supporting his father Solomon’s harem (since royal women were “property” of the state in perpetuity). This obligation may have had something to do with his decision to levy a tax hike on his subjects. Nothing is known of Maacah’s sons (11:20) except for Abijah, Rehoboam’s successor (12:16). Perhaps the Chronicler intends this “genealogical sidebar” as an apology of sorts, explaining why Abijah (the oldest son of Rehoboam’s favored wife) ascends to the throne. The appointment of Abijah as “chief prince among his brothers” (11:22) is tantamount to implementing a coregency for the purpose of guaranteeing an orderly transition of power when Rehoboam dies.

The concluding verse of the regnal résumé lauds Rehoboam’s wisdom in “dispersing some of his sons throughout the districts of Judah” (11:23). Rehoboam apparently imitates his father’s practice of delegation of royal authority by means of district governors (cf. 1 Kings 4:7–19), but he makes those appointments from princes within the royal household rather than from tribal leaders. The policy yields practical benefits: preventing the infighting experienced in David’s royal household by prospective successors to the throne, solidifying the king’s position, guarding against disloyalty in the form of an Absalom-like coup, ensuring an heir for the continuation of the dynasty (since housing the royal family in one location makes it easier for a usurper to execute all rivals), and extending the influence of the royal family to outlying districts.

Pharaoh Shishak Raids Judah (12:1–12)

Pharaoh Shishak raids Judah (12:1–12). The Chronicler’s report of the Egyptian invasion of Judah is based on the parallel in 1 Kings 14:21–28. The details concerning the size of Shishak’s army (12:3–4) and the speech of Shemaiah the prophet (12:5–8) have no parallel and represent an unknown source (perhaps “the records of Shemaiah” mentioned in 12:15). Pharaoh Shishak or Sheshonq I was the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty, and he reunified Upper and Lower Egypt. He ruled from 945–924 B.C., and his campaign into Palestine takes place during the fifth year of Rehoboam (925 B.C.). His own account of the campaign is inscribed on the walls of the temple of Karnak, according to which he sweeps through Judah and Israel as far north as the Valley of Jezreel and Megiddo, capturing more than 150 towns and villages along the way.11

The Chronicler understands Shishak’s invasion of Judah as punishment for sin, in that Rehoboam and all Israel have “abandoned the law of the LORD” (12:1). By “all Israel” the Chronicler means all the Israelites living in Judah (the “true” Israel), whether from northern or southern Hebrew tribal stock. The Chronicler assigns this breach of Judah’s faithfulness to Yahweh and the Egyptian raid into Palestine a cause-and-effect relationship, a clear indication of his acknowledgment of the God of the Hebrews as the sovereign Lord of history (12:2).

The reason for the lapse in Judah’s loyalty to Yahweh after three years of walking faithfully in the ways of David and Solomon is unclear (cf. 11:17). The phrase “he had become strong” (12:1) suggests that pride and self-reliance have replaced Rehoboam’s dependence on God. Perhaps Rehoboam has taken his initiatives to fortify the cities guarding Jerusalem too seriously (cf. 11:5–12), trusting in his own defensive measures rather than on God.

The expression “the law of the LORD” is usually understood to refer to a canonical corpus fixed by the time of the Chronicler (perhaps the Torah or law of Moses). In this case, being “unfaithful to the LORD” (12:2) has covenantal implications, thus explaining the enforcement of the curse formulas of the Mosaic law (cf. Deut. 28:45–52). The Chronicler’s inclusion of the “Sukkites” among the allies of Shishak attests to the antiquity of the sources for the report of Shishak’s campaign, since these Libyan warriors from the oases of the western desert are known primarily from Egyptian records of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.12

Shemaiah the prophet (12:5) is known as a “man of God” (11:2) and earlier warned Rehoboam not to wage war against the northern tribes of Israel after the split of Solomon’s kingdom (11:4). He now brings a message of both judgment (12:5) and mercy to Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah (12:7–8). The principle that God “abandons” those who “abandon” him is candidly presented and basic to the Chronicler’s theology (cf. 1 Chron. 28:9, 20; 2 Chron. 15:2; 24:20). The response by Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah that “the LORD is just” (2 Chron. 12:6) is essentially a confession of sin—an acknowledgment that God is in the right (cf. Dan. 9:14). God accepts this confession as an act of “humbling oneself” (2 Chron. 12:6–7), a form of repentance that brings the sinner back to God.

God mercifully decrees that Judah will experience a “qualified” deliverance from Shishak (12:7b), but they will not escape the consequences of their disobedience—they will “become subject to him [i.e., Shishak]” for a time (12:8). The so-called “school of hard knocks” is a trying way to learn that it is better to serve the Lord than to be subjects of a foreign king (12:8). At times God uses whatever means are necessary to teach his people important lessons about the nature of his covenant relationship with them (in this case “fearing” God and not Shishak, 12:5).

The report of the “treasures” of the Jerusalem temple and royal palace “carried off” by Shishak suggests the loot is given as tribute to “buy off” Shishak rather than taken as booty through war (12:9–11). It is even possible that an unhealthy fixation on these “treasures” may have been connected to Rehoboam’s unfaithfulness (since Israel’s kings were not to accumulate large amounts of silver and gold, cf. Deut 17:17). Beyond the fact that Judah is a diminished nation politically and economically after Shishak’s invasion, the reference to the confiscation of Solomon’s gold shields, subsequently replaced by bronze replicas, emphasizes the loss of Israel’s splendor (cf. 1 Kings 10:16–17; 2 Chron. 9:15–16).

The split of Solomon’s kingdom signals the end of Israel’s “golden age” both figuratively and literally. The harsh consequences of divine retribution for disobedience to Yahweh’s covenant is no doubt meant as a “wake-up” call to both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The Shishak episode illustrates what can (and sadly does) happen again in Israelite history. The message has currency for the Chronicler’s audience as well since God is still the sovereign Lord of history, and postexilic Israel is still bound to him in covenant relationship.

Selman regards the last verse of the report of Shishak’s raid into Judah (12:12) as a summary of the Chronicler’s review of Rehoboam’s entire reign.13 The act of Rehoboam’s humbling himself before God recalls events associated with the Egyptian invasion of Judah (esp. Rehoboam’s response to the speech of the prophet Shemaiah, 12:6–7). The ambiguous phrase “there was some good in Judah” seems to look back to those three years when Rehoboam and Judah imitated the faithfulness of David and Solomon (esp. 11:13–17).

The word “humbled himself” (Niphal of knʿ, 12:12) means to forsake one’s pride and yield in self-denying loyalty to God. This action appeases God’s wrath and spares Rehoboam and Judah from total destruction. God delivers on his promise to respond with forgiveness and healing to those who humble themselves before him in prayer (7:14). The message of “humbling oneself” before God and receiving forgiveness and healing remains pertinent for the Chronicler and his audience. This will become the gist of John the Baptist’s preaching (cf. Luke 3:2–9).

Concluding Regnal Résumé (12:13–16)

Concluding regnal résumé (12:13–16). The regnal résumé of King Rehoboam’s reign repeats the summary found in 1 Kings 14:21–22, 29–31. The Chronicler reorders the material by combining the opening and closing résumés of the Kings’ narrative into one concluding résumé. The typical formulas are intact: the length of reign, accession age, mother’s name, citation of historical source(s), death and burial, and succession. Rehoboam’s reign is dated variously between 937 and 913 B.C. Our study dates his seventeen-year rule from 930–913 B.C.

There are two notable variations in Chronicles, one theological and one bibliographic. (1) The theological review in 1 Kings 14:22 indicts the people of Judah for the blatant religious apostasy during Rehoboam’s reign. By contrast, the Chronicler places blame for idolatry directly on Rehoboam, even adding the commentary that the king “had not set his heart on seeking the LORD” (2 Chron. 12:14). The spiritual posture of setting one’s heart on seeking the Lord is a theme in this literary unit, with Rehoboam serving as a foil for both Asa and Jehoshaphat, whose hearts are fully devoted to the Lord (see 15:17; 17:6). The expression “to seek [drš] the LORD” in Chronicles refers to one’s overall inclination and habits for spiritual things, whether faith in God or self-reliance. Implicit in the Chronicler’s commentary on Rehoboam is the call for his audience to take inventory so as to set their hearts on seeking the Lord.

(2) The Chronicler substitutes two prophetic sources in his citation of the historical formula for “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” found in 1 Kings 14:29 (see 2 Chron. 12:15). The “records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer” may have been sections contained in other documents (like “the annals of the kings of Judah”) or an even larger compendium of the monarchy’s archival materials. The Chronicler’s citation of additional historical sources may help explain why his account of Rehoboam’s reign is three times longer than the parallel in 1 Kings. Moreover, these references indicate the breadth of historical sources available to the Chronicler as well as a concern for accuracy in his reporting.

The regnal résumé in Chronicles omits the second reference to Rehoboam’s Ammonite mother, Naamah (12:13; cf. 1 Kings 14:21, 31). This is likely for stylistic reasons, although the Chronicler’s understanding of any direct relationship between Rehoboam’s evil ways and the influence of his non-Hebrew mother is unclear. Given the importance the Chronicler attaches to the death and burial formula, however, Selman views the omission of the fact that Rehoboam is buried with his ancestors as a negative assessment of the king (2 Chron. 12:16; cf. 1 Kings 14:31, “buried with his ancestors,” so NRSV; NIV reads “buried with them” [i.e., “his fathers”]).14

Toward Bridging Contexts

Toward bridging contexts. The Chronicles are all about the relevance of earlier Israelite history for the writer’s generation. That relevance is demonstrated by the example of God’s people of a bygone era and includes especially the relevance of obedience to God’s Word, the relevance of prayer to the God of heaven, and the relevance of proper worship at Yahweh’s temple. For the Chronicler, the applicability of earlier Israelite history for postexilic Judah includes the currency of the prophetic voice for the spiritual and moral well-being of God’s people, despite the fact that the voice of God’s prophets and prophetesses has not been heard for perhaps a century or more by the time the Chronicler retells the story of Israel’s kingship. Second Chronicles 10–12, summarizing the reign of Rehoboam, points toward the contemporary significance of the larger literary unit (10:1–21:3) by calling attention to the negative example of Solomon’s son in his inability to “listen” to advice (10:8, 13, 15, 16). Rejecting the message of God’s sage or the prophet quickly makes a relevant word irrelevant!

King Abijah (13:1–14:1)

Bridging Contexts

RELEVANCE OF THE PROPHETS. The Chronicles are all about the relevance of the example of God’s people of a bygone era for the writer’s generation. That relevance includes especially obedience to God’s word, prayer to the God of heaven, and proper worship at Yahweh’s temple. For the Chronicler, the applicability of earlier history for postexilic Judah includes the currency of the prophetic voice for the spiritual and moral well-being of God’s people—despite the fact that the voice of God’s prophets and prophetesses has not been heard for perhaps a century by his time. The profound relevance of the prophetic voice for the Chronicler’s audience is captured in Jehoshaphat’s exhortation to Judah before engaging the Moabite and Ammonite coalition in battle: “Have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (20:20).

But who are the Israelite prophets and prophetesses? In many ways, the ranks of the prophetic corps in the Old Testament are filled with ordinary men and women. Many are anonymous figures, nameless voices faithfully proclaiming a message from God. Often these individuals appear only briefly in the biblical narrative, “on stage” for but a few lines. Yet at times they “steal the show” with a rhetorical question, a homespun parable, a dramatic object lesson, or even an outrageous claim challenging the status quo.

The prophets represent a cross-section of Israelite society, whether a farmer like Amos or a “blue-blood” like Isaiah. But blue-collar and white-collar prophet alike, these ordinary individuals exhibit an extraordinary faith in God and an unswerving faithfulness to the proclamation of his word. Oftentimes they speak to their own peril (as Jeremiah could attest). But they are truly human too, as their ministries are not without lapses of doubt and fits of disobedience (as Jonah could attest).

Jewish scholar Rabbi Heschel raises the question: “What manner of person is the prophet of God?” Part of his answer includes the following list of prophetic characteristics. It is offered here as an example for Christians because that is how the Chronicler portrays the prophets for his audience—exemplary figures of faith in God:

• a spirit scandalized by evil because of their keen sensitivity to holiness (Hab. 1:3)

• a consuming passion with the “trivialities” of life because everything related to the plight of humanity is important (Amos 2:7)

• a sometimes “explosive” and volatile personality—a sharp sword and a polished arrow (Hos. 6:5)

• the pursuit of the highest good—love, justice, and righteousness (Jer. 9:23–24; Zech. 4:6)

• an iconoclastic posture—a willingness to challenge the apparently holy, the seemingly sacred, the patently traditional (Jer. 7:4)

• a burden for people arising out of divinely motivated compassion (Hos. 1–3)

• a life of paradox blending loneliness and misery with joy and elation (Jer. 15:16; 20:9)

• the courage to confront God with honest doubt (Hab. 1:2–3, 12)

• a willingness to wait on God in prayer (Hab. 2:1–2).60

What role does the prophetic voice play in Old Testament times? The functions of God’s prophet or prophetess in Hebrew society vary somewhat, depending on the time frame of that individual’s ministry. (1) The prophetic voice prior to the beginning of the monarchy is represented by figures like Moses, Deborah, and even Samuel, each of whom served as a spokesperson for God and as a leader for his people, often in the office of judge. The Hebrew judge frequently filled duties in multiple roles, including that of legal magistrate, military general, civil leader, and spiritual overseer.

(2) The preclassical or nonwriting prophets ministered to both the kings and the people during the united and divided monarchies as spokespersons for God and as political and spiritual advisers. Representative examples of the preclassical prophetic voice include individuals like Nathan, Elijah, and Micaiah the son of Imlah from this very unit (cf. 18:8). The prophetic speeches recorded in Chronicles, with a single exception (24:20–22), portray the prophets and Huldah the prophetess primarily as advisers to the king (see fig. 2 in the introduction).

(3) The classical or writing prophets stood watch during the eras of the divided monarchies (e.g., Hosea, Amos, Isaiah), the Exile (e.g., Jeremiah and Ezekiel), and the early postexilic periods (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah). They too were spokespersons for God and acted primarily as social and spiritual commentators.

What is the form of the prophetic message? Broadly understood, three types of speech are identifiable in the prophetic books of the Old Testament: historical accounts, prophetic utterances, and prayers. The prophetic speeches of the classical or writing prophets are often separated into two basic types of oracles: the judgment oracle and the salvation oracle.61 The judgment-oracle category may be further subdivided into indictment and judgment oracles, and the salvation-oracle category may be subdivided into instruction and aftermath oracles.62 The indictment oracle rehearses the offenses of the guilty party (whether an individual or a nation), and the judgment oracle cites the divine punishment to be meted out. The instruction oracle exhorts the guilty to respond to the threat of divine judgment, often a call to repentance. The aftermath oracle offers the promise of future hope in the form of deliverance from an enemy and restoration after destruction.

The four oracle categories are foundational as a basic outline of the message of many of the writing prophets. For example, this oracle pattern undergirds the macrostructure of Hosea: account of Hosea’s marriage (Hos. 1–3), indictment (chs. 4–5), instruction (ch. 6), judgment (chs. 7–13), and aftermath (ch. 14). Also in Amos we have indictment (Amos 1–4), instruction (ch. 5), judgment (chs. 6–8), and aftermath (ch. 9). The essential idea of the judgment and salvation oracles may be seen in the prophetic speeches recorded in Chronicles, whether defeat for the king (i.e., judgment oracle; e.g., 12:5–8; 18:12–22) or success for the king (i.e., salvation oracle; e.g., 15:1–7; 16:7–9).

The Old Testament prophets are typically associated with prediction, foretelling the future of Israel and the nations by means of cryptic apocalyptic visions. It is true that at times the Hebrew prophets pronounce oracles forecasting both near and distant future events of Israelite history. This type of prophetic speech is often couched in phrases like “the day of the LORD”—examples include Elijah’s forecast of drought in Israel (1 Kings 17:1) and Isaiah’s promise of Jerusalem’s restoration under Yahweh’s servant King Cyrus (Isa. 45:1). Among the key themes of prophetic foretelling are the promises of future deliverance and restoration of Israel, the judgment of the wicked, the new covenant, a coming messiah-king like David who will rule in righteousness, and the hope of a new creation.

Prognostication, however, is not the primary emphasis of the ministry of the prophets as only 20 percent or so of prophetic speech in the Old Testament is predictive. The bulk of prophetic speech is forthtelling or interpretive exposition. This type of prophetic speech consists of instruction, admonition, and exhortation based on Mosaic law. The prophets not only serve as expositors of the Mosaic tradition, but they are also social and political commentators. King Ahab called Elijah the prophet a “troubler” of Israel (1 Kings 18:17)—and indeed the title is fitting because the prophets were the “conscience” of both Israelite kings and society. The repeated themes of prophetic speech include the call to repentance and a return to true worship, the practice of social justice, the rejection of immorality, and reliance on Yahweh rather than on false gods and foreign alliances.

There are seventeen prophetic speeches in Chronicles made by fourteen named prophets, one named prophetess, and two unnamed prophets. Fourteen of the prophetic speeches are directed to kings, one to the Israelite army, and two to the general populace of Judah. Apart from Nathan’s oracle concerning the Davidic covenant (1 Chron. 17), the predominant message of these speeches is one of either the proclamation of success and deliverance or warning and judgment for the kings. Their primary purpose is to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to the Davidic covenant and his concern for the success of Davidic rule in Judah.

But why would Jehoshaphat encourage his people to “have faith” in God’s prophets? For the simple fact that the word of prophets is inextricably bound to God himself, as the full quotation of Jehoshaphat’s exhortation reveals: “Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (20:20). To have faith in God’s prophets is tantamount to having faith in God because they are commissioned as his servants to speak his word to Israel and the nations. Support for this understanding is found in two related biblical ideas, that of the divine assembly and the form of prophetic speech patterns.

The concept of a divine assembly is found in the religious literature of the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamian literature the divine assembly is comprised of the gods and goddesses of the pantheon and their angelic attendants. This assembly met, often after feasting, to discuss and determine the fate of the course of human events. Their decision was then duly pronounced and executed on earth. In Mesopotamian religion the executor of the will of the divine council was the storm god Enlil.63

A similar notion may be found in the Hebrew understanding of the heavenly realm. Cryptic references in the Psalms mention the assembly of the holy ones who surround God (Ps. 29:1; 89:5, 7). The abode of Yahweh is depicted as a heavenly throne room; in addition to the Godhead this divine council is comprised of his angelic attendants, including the four living creatures and angels of other ranks and descriptions (cf. Isa. 6:1–3; Ezek. 1:4–10). The council of Yahweh makes and enforces decrees concerning the operation of the cosmos. The angelic members of the council are often sent as envoys of God to deliver his messages and his decrees (e.g., “the angel of the LORD” [malʾak yhwh] in Ex. 3:2; Judg. 13:13, 15; angels [malʾak] like Gabriel, Dan. 8:16).

Micaiah is an example of God’s prophet invited by means of a vision to observe the divine assembly in action and who then reports the message of the “lying prophets” to Ahab and Jehoshaphat (18:18–22). In fact, the most frequently used term for the “prophet” (nabiʾ ) denotes this idea of the messenger from the divine council since it essentially means “one who speaks for another” as a representative of that authority. The Israelite prophet, then, in one sense stood in the divine assembly as a messenger of the council, heard God’s word, and was then commissioned to deliver it to his people. This explains why their oracles are usually delivered in the past tense—it is a message they have already heard, and because it was spoken by God himself, it would assuredly come to pass.

Typically the speech patterns of the Old Testament prophets are characterized by highly repetitive formulaic language. These stock phrases and expressions are cues to the audience as to the divine source and authority of their message and to the authenticity and integrity of the divine messenger. Here are the more prominent formulas of the prophetic speech pattern:

• the messenger formula (lit., “thus says Yahweh”; NIV = “this is what the LORD says,” 2 Chron. 20:15)

• the prophetic word formula (“the word of the LORD came to me,” e.g., 1 Chron. 17:3; 2 Chron. 12:7)

• the divine utterance formula (“declares the LORD,” e.g., 2 Chron. 34:27)

• the revelation formula (“the LORD showed” or “the LORD spoke,” e.g., 1 Chron. 21:27; 2 Chron. 33:10; cf. 36:12)

• the proclamation formula (“hear the word of the LORD,” e.g., 18:18).64

The idea of a messenger sent from the divine council to relay God’s word heard in the assembly of the holy ones culminates in Jesus Christ. The prophet Malachi foretold of a day when God would send a “messenger” (malʾak) before his appearance at the Jerusalem temple (Mal. 3:1). Jesus identified John the Baptist as that messenger or prophetic forerunner of Messiah (Matt. 11:10–14). Beyond this, Jesus claims a position in the Godhead when he announces that the temple is indeed his Father’s house (John 2:16). Later Peter ascribes the prophetic office to Jesus when he recognizes him as “a prophet” like Moses to the onlookers after the healing of the crippled beggar (Acts 3:22; cf. Deut. 18:18). Finally, Jesus indicates on several occasions that he was sent from the heavenly realm by his Father, that he spoke only what he heard from the Father, and that he did only what his Father commanded him (John 5:30, 36–38; 6:33, 38). As the ultimate messenger of God’s “divine assembly,” Jesus Christ (“who is at the Father’s side”) not only makes known the decrees of God but reveals God himself (1:18).

The relevance of the story of the prophets’ interface with the kings of Israel and Judah for the Chronicler’s audience is in the response to their message. From King Saul to King Zedekiah, the story of the kingship is one of either faith or unbelief in the message of God’s prophets. In the end, the sorry epitaph for each of the divided kingdoms includes a fatal byline referencing the fact that the people ignore “his prophets” to their own destruction (2 Kings 17:23; 2 Chron. 36:16). Nehemiah sternly reminds postexilic Judah of the suicidal stubbornness of their ancestors as an admonition or warning of his own, lest history be repeated (Neh. 9:30).

The Chronicler must have shared the same concern, since the response to God’s prophets by both king and people sets the tone for the latter portion of his history (2 Chron. 10–36). Now the people must heed God’s prophets by obeying their word as inscripturated in the corpus of the Hebrew canon. Thus, the relevance of the prophets for postexilic Judah becomes associated with responding to God’s messages as preserved in the prophetic writings and taught to the people. For the Chronicler, the exhortation to “have faith in his prophets” (20:20) is a “wake-up” call to prevent the neglect of the prophetic writings found in the Scriptures. Jesus told his own audience as much in their clamor for convincing signs, even resurrection from the dead: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them” (Luke 16:29).

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

BELIEVING THE PROPHETS. One of the “buzz words” in contemporary culture is “relevance.” Whether education, politics, or even religion, people are looking for relevance. This is cultural, in part due to American pragmatism. The demand for productivity and efficiency driven by technological advances contributes to the quest for relevance as well. Finally, the high value placed on “relevance” is in some measure a reaction to modernity by a culture drifting with a postmodern current. Modernism’s irrelevance stems from its tendency to define a person as a rational human being. Postmodernity prefers to define a person in terms of emotional and spiritual qualities. In either case, however, the emphasis is still largely on the individual, and in that sense the postmodern desire for personal relevance is a carryover from the modernist culture of narcissism.

But what is meant by the term relevance? It denotes “direct relationship to the matter at hand, practicality, pertinence, currency, and applicability.” The connotation of relevance in today’s society is informed not by the dictionary definition but by the entrepreneurial culture of the business and marketing sector of American life. Relevance in the business world is defined by degrees in terms of “customer satisfaction.” The success or failure of any business is dependent on its responsiveness to the consumer. A business can only be as responsive as it is effective in discerning perceived customer needs and articulating those needs through the various levels of the corporate hierarchy. In both cases success is contingent on relevant communication, first in accurate polling of consumer demand and second in efficient dissemination of that information up the organizational ladder.65

The notion of relevance is extremely important to the Christian subculture as well. For some time now the Christian church has struggled to retain its distinctive identity as the people of God, all the while attempting to keep the pews filled with “satisfied customers.”66 Beyond this, church-growth gurus identify a vibrant pulpit ministry as a high priority item on the checklist of the “church consumer.” Not surprisingly, a quick review of any of the numerous guides to preaching available reveals that “relevance” is vital to effective pulpit communication.

Haddon Robinson, for instance, insists that “apart from life-related, biblical content we have nothing worth communicating” (italics added).67 The continuing success of the “life-application” type of study Bible is another indicator of the value the Christian community places on relevance, in this case the immediate practicality of biblical truth to the individual’s life situation. The influence of postmodernism thought has even generated a demand for more relevance in corporate worship experiences in our Christian churches. What is meant by relevant worship is worship that is more in step with the contemporary culture, worship that fosters the experience of mystery, worship that is participatory, worship that appreciates the inter-relatedness of all things, and worship that communicates through the visual.68

The idea of relevance is not a recent cultural invention. People, whether living in an ancient, modern, or postmodern society, seek relevance because at some level “theory” and “practice” must overlap for life to have meaning and purpose. For instance, the psalmist Asaph laments the seeming incongruity between the “theory” (or theology) of the Mosaic law that obedience to God’s commandments results in divine blessing and disobedience yields divine punishment (e.g., Ps. 73:13–14; cf. Deut. 28). He questions the relevance (or practicality) of punishment “every morning” as his reward for the life of “innocence” and purity that he seeks to live in adherence to Yahweh’s covenant commands. The prophet Malachi’s audience registers a similar complaint when they challenge the relevance of a theology that “blesses” the arrogant while the righteous languish in futility (Mal. 3:14–15). Much later, the apostle Peter anticipates the relevance question when he warns Christians against siding with the scoffers who find no pertinence in the teaching of Jesus’ second coming (2 Peter 3:3–4).

In fact, if Chronicles is indeed a “theology of hope” for postexilic Judah, then in one sense the two books are all about the relevance of earlier Hebrew history for the contemporary generation. For the Chronicler, that relevance or applicability is found in things like the example of humble obedience to the commandments found in God’s Word, the efficacy of heartfelt prayer to the Lord God of heaven when trouble looms large on the horizon, or the experience of joy associated with the proper worship of Yahweh at his temple. There is even relevance in listening to the prophetic voice: “Have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (2 Chron. 20:20c). This is so because to “have faith in his prophets” is to “have faith in the LORD your God” (20:20b). Faith in God is always relevant because true and purposeful life can only be found by believing God—taking him at his word (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4).

The word “success” communicates in any age. The context of Jehoshaphat’s prayer is that of success in a military battle (20:20). The Chronicler understands, however, that it is God alone who grants success to individuals and nations.69 Here I suggest that the oracles of the Old Testament prophets are always relevant or continually have currency for the life of faith in God. This is true not because they predict “success,” but because like Jehoshaphat’s exhortation they call to people to “have faith in the LORD … God” (20:20). This is hardly a new concept. R. B. Y. Scott was touting the relevance of the Old Testament prophets five decades ago in what might now be considered his “minor classic” by that title.70

But why are the Old Testament prophets relevant, and what makes their message spoken to ancient Israel more than twenty-five centuries ago applicable to contemporary culture? According to Scott, the remarkable contemporaneity of these ancient figures and the perennial freshness of their message spring from several distinctive characteristics:

• their power to penetrate past the maze of appearances to identify the essential underlying human and theological facts of a given circumstance or historical situation

• their ability to define essential justice and essential religion amid moral confusion, secular influence, and human waywardness

• their shrewd understanding of human nature and the human predicament as a result of their suffering (what at times is called the “prophetic pathos”)

• their sensitivity to the urgent meaning of history as the sphere of humanity’s moral decisions and God’s preemptory intervention

• their knowledge of God as the fountainhead of ultimate meaning and purpose in the context of everyday life

• their intuitive comprehension of the reality of God’s presence in the inner world of their own heart and spirit

• their capacity to communicate concretely, in universal terms, and with both passion and conviction—to speak with divine authority by the power of God’s Spirit as choice servants commissioned by God—unlike their rivals, who told “fortunes for money” (Mic. 3:11; cf. Amos 3:8; Mic. 3:8)71

Scott has also provided numerous categories for the contemporary application of the message of the Old Testament prophets:

• history: The key ideas here include the sovereignty of God as the one who “sets up kings and deposes them” (Dan. 2:21), God’s redemptive purpose in human history for both judgment and salvation (cf. Isa. 52:7; Jer. 51:29), and the notion that biblical history is both cyclical (cf. Eccl. 3:1–8) and linear (the terminus of human history is implicit in the phrase “the day of the LORD,” cf. Isa. 65:17).

• social order: Individual behavior matters—the prophetic voice held people accountable for their deeds and espoused an agenda for social justice rooted in the teachings of the Sinai covenant (e.g., Jer. 11:4–5; Amos 4:1; 5:11).

• religion: Essential religion in the Old Testament was personal and communal (exemplified in the lives and ministries of prophets like Jeremiah and Hosea) and covenantal (cf. Jer. 31:31–33); it emphasized the knowledge of God and personal holiness (cf. Isa. 29:23; 35:8), demanded a whole-person response of love and obedience in worship (cf. 1:10–20), and issued in actions that promoted social justice (cf. Amos 5:23–24; Mic. 6:6–8).

• theology: For the Old Testament prophetess or prophet, theology was all about the “knowledge” of God (Hos. 6:3), and they knew God as an immanent and transcendent deity (cf. Isa. 57:15: 66:2), as a consuming fire in his holiness (cf. 30:27), and as a refuge in his goodness (cf. Nah. 1:7); his revelation was rooted in historical reality (as seen in the date formulas introducing prophetic oracles, e.g., Isa. 6:1), the prophetic ministry was a call to spiritual warfare (cf. 1 Kings 18), and both divine punishment for sin and divine mercy as a means of grace were realities in God’s providential rule of creation (cf. Isa. 54:7).

• preaching: The authority of prophetic preaching resides in the faithful proclamation of the word of the Lord (validated in the messenger formula, such as “this is what the LORD says,” Jer. 2:5); the essential message of prophetic preaching is repentance (e.g., Joel 2:12–13); the medium of prophetic preaching is both word and image (as seen in the object lesson of Jeremiah’s linen belt [Jer. 13:1–11] or the example of the “living parable” of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer as the illustration of God’s call of repentance to Israel [Hos. 1–3]).

• culture: The prophetic school was called to “contextualize” their message from God by means of incarnational preaching, teaching, and confirming miraculous signs—living in and ministering to people in their cultural setting (as seen in the example of Elijah’s living among the indigenous Canaanite peoples and demonstrating Yahweh’s supremacy over Baal in his supposed domains of fire, food, and life itself, cf. 1 Kings 17–18).

• politics: The prophets of God were called at times to an “iconoclastic” ministry with respect to the religious and political offices and institutions of Hebrew society; they were also the “conscience” of both priest and king as they decried the exercise of social power without social responsibility—religion and government must serve the common welfare (Hos. 4:1–3; Amos 2:6–7; cf. Jas. 1:27).72

A word of caution is in order here before we rush off to apply the message of the Old Testament prophets to our contemporary setting. We are well served by Scott’s admonition that it is presumptuous to speak of the relevance of the prophets apart from the knowledge of their message.73 They do not speak of our age but to it because the word of Yahweh is in their mouths as his messengers.

But here is the rub: I fear we do not know the message of the prophets. Granted, my perceptions are based largely on two decades of service as a professor of Old Testament studies at three different Christian liberal arts colleges. Yet, I am inclined to surmise that many of our Protestant “free church” traditions perpetuate a “practical Marcionism” because they send students to college who have little or no acquaintance with the Old Testament story. Naturally, the home and the church must work together in the biblical education of Christian young people, and the impact of Christian “home schooling” and Christian elementary and high school education is encouraging. But the general lack of Old Testament knowledge among students entering Christian colleges is a disturbing trend. Most students in an entry-level Old Testament class cannot find the book of Habakkuk in their Bible, let alone articulate its message. Yet the message of this prophet was foundational to the Protestant Reformation (cf. Hab. 2:4).

Perhaps the significance of the “prophetic voices” in this section of Chronicles is not the application of their message to our times but an exhortation to find out what that message was so we can then make contemporary application. King Jehoshaphat’s charge to “have faith in his prophets” (20:20) is still our directive in the sense that we too accept the Old Testament prophets as Yahweh’s clarions, trumpeting his Word to God’s faithful across the generations. The Chronicler would call us to “have faith” in God’s prophets to the point where we indeed believe that they were divinely commissioned messengers who spoke the very words of God. Scott has ably demonstrated that the Old Testament prophetic voice is still relevant to the Christian life so that like Ezekiel’s countrymen, we should “gather around” the prophet to hear “the message that has come from the LORD” (cf. Ezek. 33:30). Unlike Ezekiel’s audience, however, who only listened to the words of God’s prophets as a form of entertainment, we must be willing to “put them into practice” (33:31).

One way for the Christian church to “gather around” the Hebrew prophets is to utilize the prophetic books of the Old Testament on a regular basis—thus giving credence to Paul’s instruction to be devoted “to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Adopting the tradition of the more liturgical Christian churches of including both Old and New Testament readings in a systematic way is one helpful approach to ensuring some balance in the use of Scripture in corporate worship. In fact, Robert Webber encourages more public reading of Scripture as one way to renew the service of the Word in corporate worship.74

The Christological focus of worship may be recovered through the reenactment of the Christ-event by means of recitation (the reading and preaching of Scripture) and drama (gathering at the table of the Lord’s Supper). The Old Testament must be included in this recitation of God’s work through Christ because we learn that the things written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were about Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24:44). I concur with Webber when he says, “I want someone to read [i.e., Scripture] who knows how to read, and I want the person who preaches to communicate to me.”75 The church is slowly learning how to implement the “lively reading” of Scripture in corporate worship by taking a page out of the Chronicler’s “handbook” for Levitical ministry. This is being accomplished, in part, by utilizing the gifts of those individuals who have capacities to memorize biblical passages and deliver them as dramatic presentations, by “reader’s theater” approaches that incorporate people who “know how to read,” and by the antiphonal singing and chanting of biblical texts.

In addition to the public reading of the Old Testament as a part of the Scripture lessons in the service of the Word in corporate worship, the corpus of the Old Testament prophets must also be a resource for Christian preaching. Again, according to Webber, “people need to experience the immediacy of the Word of God. They need to know that the God who acted in history can be active now, touching their lives, healing their hurts, and giving them a vision for the future.”76 Since all Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16, in context a reference to the Old Testament) and since those things “written in the past” were written to “teach” (Rom. 15:4) and “warn” (1 Cor. 10:11) us, clearly Christians can experience the “immediacy” of God’s Word from the preaching of the Old Testament as well as the New. As John Bright has cogently argued,

the normative element in the Old Testament, and its abiding authority as the Word of God, rests not in its laws and customs, its institutions and ancient patterns of thinking, nor yet in the characters and events of which its history tell, but in that structure of theology which undergirds each of its texts and which is caught up in the New Testament and announced as fulfilled in Jesus Christ.77

More specifically, Duduit has suggested the following reasons for preaching the Old Testament as part of a balanced and effective pulpit ministry:

• It aids us in understanding the New Testament (indeed, one-third of the New Testament is Old Testament quotation or allusion or explication).

• It is vital for a balanced understanding of biblical theology.

• It offers practical insights for Christian living.

• It deals with life’s great questions.

• It leads us to Jesus Christ.78

The Word of God, including the Old Testament prophets, remains “living and active.… It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The Word of God has a “prophetic ministry” in the heart of its hearer or reader; how much more does the “sharpened sword” and “polished arrow” (Isa. 49:2) of Old Testament prophets enhance that “prophetic ministry.”

The practical benefits of exploring the relevance of the Old Testament prophets for the Christian church are timely, even crucial as modernity gives way to postmodernity. This is true primarily because the ideology of religious pluralism is the shared common denominator between the cultural contexts of the biblical prophets and contemporary North American society. Reclaiming the prophetic mantle is relevant for the church in at least three important ways:

(1) Our acquaintance with the Old Testament prophets will help raise awareness and appreciation for the message of their contemporary counterparts—men and women who stand in their tradition of proclaiming God’s Word of admonition and exhortation to the righteous and repentance to the unrighteous (cf. 2 Peter 1:12–21).

(2) Sound instruction in the Spirit-spawned message of the Old Testament prophets contributes to the cultivation of the spiritual discipline of testing or discerning the spirits for the purpose of exposing false teachers and false teaching (cf. 1 John 4:1–3).

(3) The preaching and teaching of the Old Testament prophets as part of the “whole counsel of God” may encourage a new generation of “prophets” and “prophetesses” to take on the mantle of calling people to repentance and serving as the moral conscience of the surrounding culture (cf. Eph. 4:11). Jehoshaphat’s charge to Judah before going to battle against the Moabite and Ammonite coalition still has relevance for God’s people: “Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (20:20).

Original Meaning

King Rehoboam (10:1–12:16)

THE SUMMARY OF REHOBOAM’S reign in Chronicles is three times longer than the version found in 1 Kings 12:1–24 and 14:21–31. By way of literary subgenres, the narrative account of Rehoboam’s reign is comprised of historical story (2 Chron. 10:1–19), two reports (Rehoboam’s early success, 11:1–23; Shishak’s punitive raid, 12:1–12), and a concluding regnal résumé (12:13–16). Irony runs thick in the story, as seen in the emphasis on Rehoboam’s “rejection” of the advice he seeks (as a courtesy?) from the council of the elders and his “rejection” by his own people. According to Williamson, the account is structured according to a thematic pattern that begins with failure, is followed by success through obedience, is then undone as a result of disobedience, and finally is climaxed by a partial restoration through self-humbling.1

The story of Rehoboam’s foolish decision documents the shattering of the ideal of “all Israel” and concludes with the thought that the people of Israel now exist as a house divided. Sadly, this state of affairs will remain as such until both northern and southern kingdoms are swallowed up by the ancient superpowers of Assyria and Babylonia respectively.

Israel Rejects the Davidic Dynasty (10:1–11:4)

Israel rejects the Davidic dynasty (10:1–11:4). The opening section of Rehoboam’s reign describes the split of Solomon’s kingdom into the rival northern and southern monarchies of Israel and Judah respectively. The event sets the stage not only for the reign of Rehoboam but also for the rest of 2 Chronicles. The Chronicler’s version closely follows 1 Kings 12:1–24. His omission of the material in 1 Kings 11 helps explain the abrupt change in the political climate of the united monarchy at Rehoboam’s succession. He assumes his audience’s knowledge of such earlier events as these: Solomon’s decline as a result of idolatry (11:1–13), Ahijah’s prophecy against the Davidic dynasty and the divine appointment of Jeroboam as a rival king (11:26–39), and Jeroboam’s asylum in Egypt as a fugitive (11:40).

The genre of the literary unit may be termed “historical story,” that is, a self-contained narrative recounting a particular event and how it happens.2 The historical story tends to demonstrate considerable literary sophistication, including the development of a plot (the continuation of the Davidic monarchy), conflict (the threat to the unity of Israel), characterization or character development (as seen in Rehoboam’s interaction with the two groups of advisers), and even subplots (the intervention by prophets of God, e.g., Ahijah [10:15] and Shemaiah [11:1–4]).

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex sociopolitical situation, a combination of interrelated factors make taxation an issue. The loss of revenue from satellite states that regained their autonomy during the latter years of Solomon’s decline deplete the royal treasuries (1 Kings 11:14–25). The support of the multilayered bureaucracy of Solomon’s administration suck vast amounts of resources from the general populace (4:20–28). Finally, all this is compounded by the extravagance and waste characteristic of Solomon’s social and economic policies (10:14–22).

By definition, centralized government is parasitic; that is, it must exist off the revenues it collects from the people governed. When faced with a budget crisis, any centralized government has but two options: raise taxes or reduce spending. But as Selman reminds us, when read as complementary records of the division of the united monarchy, both sources concur that Solomon, Rehoboam, and Jeroboam all share in the blame: Solomon does impose a “heavy yoke” on Israel (2 Chron. 10:4, 9–11, 14), Jeroboam does lead the northern tribes of Israel in revolt (10:19; cf. 13:6–7), and Rehoboam does reject the wise advice of the elders (10:6–8, 13).3

The Israelite Tribes Assemble at Shechem (10:1–4)

The Israelite tribes assemble at Shechem (10:1–4). It was customary for a new Israelite king to receive the formal approval of the people at a national assembly. David was acknowledged as king by “all Israel” at Hebron after Saul’s death (1 Chron. 11:1). Solomon was anointed and installed as king by the assembly of “all Israel” in Jerusalem (28:1, 8; 29:22–23). Here Rehoboam travels for his public coronation to Shechem (2 Chron. 10:1)—a strategic military, political, and religious center for Israel from ancient times. Both Abraham and Jacob built altars there (Gen. 12:6–7; 33:18–20), and Joshua enacted a covenant-renewal ceremony there after the initial victories of the Canaanite conquest (Josh. 24).

Sensing possible unrest during his transition to power, Rehoboam may be hoping the long Israelite tradition associated with this site will contribute to easing political tensions. The reference to “all Israel” in this context signifies the full number of the tribes. Clearly the Chronicler has telescoped the sequence of events resulting in Jeroboam’s presence at the assembly for the public coronation of Rehoboam. No doubt Jeroboam was monitoring the situation from afar (whether by means of formal channels through Pharaoh Shishak or informally by sympathetic Israelite couriers) and so makes his way to Shechem during the interim period between the national mourning over Solomon’s death and the installation of Rehoboam as his successor.

Because of his earlier commissioning by the prophet Ahijah, Jeroboam is dubbed as spokesman for “all Israel” (10:3, here the phrase refers to the northern tribes that will soon constitute the northern kingdom). Two issues of primary concern must be settled in order for the northern tribes to guarantee loyalty to the new king: “harsh labor” (i.e., forced labor gangs) and a “heavy yoke” (i.e., taxation, 10:4). The request is not unreasonable, as the terms used to describe the “harsh labor” and the “heavy yoke” are the same as those used to depict the oppression the Hebrews experienced under the Egyptian pharaoh prior to the Exodus (cf. Ex. 5:9; 6:6–7, 9).

A logistical survey also supports the complaint of the northern tribes, since for ten months of every year the northern administrative districts supplied the tons of provisions needed to sustain the centralized bureaucracy (located in the south; cf. 1 Kings 4:22–28). Obviously, the northern administrative districts have tired of a one-way flow of resources that has only led to greater impoverishment. (As an aside, the situation is not unlike that of my own state of Illinois, where the down-state taxpayers frequently complain that they see little benefit in their districts from state taxation because the lion’s share of their tax dollars end up in the budgetary column of the “money-pit” known as Chicago.)

God had built the release of debt and servitude into the calendar through his law (the sabbatical and Jubilee years, cf. Lev. 25). Curiously, however, the number of years decreed for the “Sabbath rest” of the land suggests that neither of these were ever practiced by the kings of Israel or Judah (cf. 2 Chron. 36:21; i.e., the seventy years of Hebrew exile from the land of covenant promise implies that sabbatical year had not been kept for nearly five centuries—coinciding roughly with the beginning of the monarchy in Israel).

Rehoboam Consults with His Advisers (10:5–11)

Rehoboam consults with his advisers (10:5–11). The story of Rehoboam’s consultation with his royal advisers is well known. The northern tribes demand some modification of the king’s forced labor requirements and a reduction in taxes as a condition for fealty to the Davidic monarchy. The conditional nature of the proposal from the tribal representatives indicates they are looking for more than words—they seek a diplomatic solution resulting in a pact. The three-day delay (10:5) buys time for Rehoboam to consider his options and provides a “cooling off” period for the party bringing the grievance.

Rehoboam consults two groups of royal advisers. The first is a cohort of elders left over from Solomon’s reign (10:6). These men held official positions in the cabinet of the royal court as sages, an office that was highly respected in the political circles of the ancient world. They achieved status by virtue of their age and years of civil service. The “young men who had grown up” with Rehoboam comprise the second advisory council. These men are contemporaries of the king, perhaps other royal princes, half-brothers of Rehoboam, or “junior-level” civil servants. Some see a bicameral system of authority operative in the monarchy, whose counsel to the king shapes government policy, although this remains speculative.

The advice of Solomon’s elders is conciliatory—win their approval and earn their support by “doing good” or “being kind” (10:7). A “favorable answer” to the assembly at Shechem would be a wise move, a gracious gesture, and a culturally appropriate response for the new king. The advice of Rehoboam’s cronies (10:8–9), by contrast, threatens the implementation of an even more severe corvée and taxation policy against the northern tribes—a policy that is carefully recorded and includes much repetition, suggesting thoughtful deliberation rather than a casual “coin flip” (10:8b–11). A certain irony or even contempt may be seen in the advice of the “young men,” since wisdom is found among the aged (Job 12:12).

Rehoboam is not so young as inexperienced (he is forty-one years old at his accession; 12:13). Nothing in chapter 10 suggests that he is especially malicious or cruel—only foolish. Whether out of fear that he may appear weak or for the sake of pragmatism, given the need to keep the machinery of the bureaucracy humming, he rejects the good advice of the elders and follows the bad advice (10:14). Thus, he answers his northern kinsmen harshly (10:13). The yoke, a symbol of servitude, will be made heavier (10:14a); the scourge or whip, a goad for lazy animals and a symbol of punishment for stubbornness and rebellion, will inflict even greater pain (10:14b). The representatives of the northern tribes need to hear no more.

The Division of Israel and Judah (10:12–19)

The division of Israel and Judah (10:12–19). After the three days specified for reaching a decision have elapsed, Jeroboam and his retinue and Rehoboam and his entourage reconvene the assembly of “all Israel” at Shechem (10:12). It is interesting to note that David’s coronation lasts three days and the celebration includes feasting as part of a covenant meal, sealing a pact or treaty between the tribes (cf. 1 Chron. 12:39). This lends further support to the idea that the three-day delay by Rehoboam in responding to the complaints of the northern tribes is meant to salvage a pact or treaty formalizing the loyalty of all the tribes to the new king.

Twice we are told that Rehoboam rejects the counsel of the elders to show leniency and to honor the demands of the disgruntled workers in the labor corvées (10:8, 13). Instead, he utters the advice offered by his contemporaries and venomously threatens even harsher treatment than the workers knew under his father—the sting of his whip will seem like that of the scorpion.

A key theological interpretation of developments resulting in the “meltdown” of the united monarchy is found in the Kings’ parallel and is repeated by the Chronicler. The biblical historians note that this “turn of events was from God” (10:15a; cf. 1 Kings 12:15). The Chronicler connects his commentary to Ahijah’s prophecy predicting the split of Solomon’s kingdom as punishment for his sin of idolatry—thus assuming his audience’s knowledge of the story (2 Chron. 10:15b; cf. 1 Kings 11:29–40). This approach fits a pattern in Chronicles that associates crucial moments in Israel’s history with what God has said through his prophets in an effort to demonstrate his absolute sovereignty as the Lord of history (cf. 1 Chron. 11:2; 17:13–15; 2 Chron. 36:22–23).4

In light of theological review provided by the biblical historian, we can rightly conclude that the northern tribes are not reprehensible in their role in splitting the united monarchy. Rather, they become odious to God and the biblical historians because of their subsequent sin—idol worship. In view of Ahijah’s prophecy to Jeroboam, the division of Solomon’s kingdom may be inevitable, but it is certainly not irreversible—the rival kingdom is designed to punish the house of David only temporarily (cf. 1 Kings 11:39).

The repetition of Rehoboam’s refusal to “listen” to the people further underscores the intransigence of the king (10:15–16). The poetic fragment that commemorates the split of the united monarchy is the traditional rallying cry of the northern tribes (cf. 2 Sam. 20:1). What a stark contrast between the taunt tossed at Rehoboam, “What share do we have in David?” and the vote of confidence King David received earlier from defectors to his band of mercenaries from the northern tribes, “We are yours, O David!” (1 Chron. 12:18).

The clause “so all the Israelites went home” signifies both the rejection of Rehoboam in the act of dismissal and also the finality of the decision—the negotiations are over (10:16d). The identification of both the northern and the southern tribes as “Israelites” is significant (10:16–17). They are all still the “one people” of God despite the rift between the “house of David” and the “house of Israel” (i.e., the northern tribes). This fact is important to the Chronicler’s message of hope for God’s restoration of postexilic Judah because it is dependent on the unity of all the Israelites living in the land.

Adoniram (10:18)—or Adoram, as he is known from the Kings’ parallel (1 Kings 12:18)—is one of Jeroboam’s successors as an overseer of the forced labor gangs established by Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 11:28). Selman has critiqued Rehoboam’s effort to make amends and restore tribal unity as “pathetic.”5 Knowing full well that the patience of the northern tribes has worn on the issue of forced labor, the king sends the cabinet official in charge of the forced labor gangs on a mission of reconciliation (10:18a). The “secretary of labor” is promptly stoned to death by the “civil servants” under his charge (10:18b). Apparently Rehoboam has accompanied Adoniram on the peace initiative because he barely escapes with his life from the unspecified location of the meeting (10:18c).

The term “rebellion” (pšʿ, 10:19) may not be simply a neutral term describing the separation of the northern and southern tribes. Jeroboam and the northern tribes are in rebellion against Yahweh in the sense that they have rejected the divinely ordained Davidic covenant. The phrase “to this day” (10:19) is copied from 1 Kings 12:19 and basically means “from then on,” given the historian’s chronological perspective. This is one of the few instances where the expression is still applicable to the Chronicler’s time (cf. also 1 Chron. 5:26).

Shemaiah Brokers Peace between Israel and Judah (11:1–4)

Shemaiah brokers peace between Israel and Judah (11:1–4). The Chronicler omits the reference to the coronation of Jeroboam as king of “all Israel” (i.e., the ten northern Hebrew tribes, 1 Kings 12:20), although this is implicit in the expression “to regain the kingdom for Rehoboam” (2 Chron. 11:1). Apart from this, Chronicles closely adheres to 1 Kings 12:21–24. The civil war that later characterizes the first fifty years of coexistence of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah is averted early on by prophetic intervention (2 Chron. 11:2–4, though see 12:15, which reports “continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam”).

Shemaiah is one of several preclassical prophets mentioned briefly in the Old Testament historical books. No collections of their oracles have been preserved, only extracts of sermons and prophecies—as in the case of Shemaiah’s message to Rehoboam (11:3–4; note the reference to “the records of Shemaiah the prophet” cited in the concluding regnal résumé, 12:15). This time Rehoboam heeds the advice offered, without asking for a “second opinion.” It is unclear what motivates his receptivity to the prophetic message—whether the ominous threat of Egyptian invasion prompting his fortification of strategic cities in Judah (11:5), the pang of conscience in the admonition not to wage war against “brothers” (11:4; cf. 28:11), or, most likely, the realization that the split of the united monarchy is the Lord’s “doing” (11:4; cf. 10:15). The kingdom is God’s to grant to whom he wills, not Rehoboam’s to regain by force. Clearly God’s will for the divided kingdom is peace because the northern tribes are as capable of repentance as the southern tribes are of apostasy.6

Rehoboam’s impetuous response to muster troops and wage war to counter Jeroboam’s coup calls to mind nuggets of Solomonic wisdom. Earlier Rehoboam sought advice but listened to foolish counsel (10:5–11). Here Rehoboam seeks no advice but plans his own course—only to have the Lord “determine his steps” (Prov. 16:9). But in heeding Shemaiah’s word, Rehoboam begins to act wisely by listening to advice and accepting instruction (Prov. 12:15; 19:20).

The references to “Judah and Benjamin” are both tribal (11:1) and geographical (11:3). The accuracy of the tally of troops mustered in Judah (180,000 militia) is sometimes challenged. The number, however, does not appear unreasonable, given the muster of 470,000 militia in Judah according to David’s ill-advised census (1 Chron. 21:5) or the 580,000 militia assembled by King Asa (2 Chron. 14:8). The call “to your tents” is a declaration of rebellion by the northern tribes against Rehoboam (10:16). Shemaiah’s call to “go home” is an appeal to Judah to abandon the plans for war against Israel (11:4a). Rehoboam and Judah accept God’s will as spoken by his prophet and turn back from the campaign against their northern tribesmen (11:4b).

Judah Supports Rehoboam (11:5–17)

Judah supports Rehoboam (11:5–17). The passage divides neatly into two sections, a summary of Rehoboam’s defensive measures against foreign invasion (11:5–12) and the support Rehoboam received from the northern tribes after the split of the united monarchy (11:13–17). The unit continues the emphasis on God’s reward for faithfulness and introduces for the first time the religious apostasy of Jeroboam (perpetuated by all the rulers of the northern kingdom).

Dillard notes that Jeroboam’s return from asylum in Egypt under Pharaoh Shishak’s protection “would be ample enough stimulus for a fortification program.”7 The list of cities reinforced as military outposts and stocked with provisions and weapons are strategically located, each defending important routes into the heart of Judah. Yet the line of fortresses enclose a rather limited defensive perimeter, suggesting that Rehoboam is confident of holding only the Shephelah and the Judean hill country—“a de facto concession of territory and the demise of the Solomonic empire.”8 Shishak’s invasion of Judah via the coastal highway and the Negev confirm the weakness of Rehoboam’s position, for he captures the fortified cities of Judah (12:4).

The report of priests and Levites migrating from Israel to Judah after the split of the united monarchy offers a southern kingdom perspective on the false worship centers established in the northern kingdom by Jeroboam (11:13–17; cf. 1 Kings 12:26–33). These priests and Levites find themselves “disenfranchised” as a result of the alternative shrines erected by Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel. The reference to the “goat and calf” idols recalls the golden calf episode after the Exodus (Ex. 32:1–10; Deut. 9:16). Jeroboam’s calf gods probably represent the syncretism of the Egyptian Apis (bull god) and Hathor (cow goddess) cults and Canaanite religion, which often depict deities standing on calves or bulls as symbols of their power and fertility. The goat idols are probably demons or satyrs in the form of male goats; such worship was expressly forbidden in the law of Moses (Lev. 17:7; cf. Deut. 32:16–17).

The Levites are probably rejected as candidates for religious service in Jeroboam’s “calf cult” because they remain loyal to the Jerusalem temple as the legitimate worship center for all Israelites. It remains unclear if these “defectors” from Jeroboam’s idol worship abandon their properties in Israel and take up permanent residency in Judah or simply observe the pilgrimage festivals in Jerusalem (11:14). Their example prompts other Israelites from the northern tribes to join them in worshiping the Lord in Jerusalem (11:16). Interestingly, these Israelites have “set their hearts on seeking the LORD,” something King Rehoboam ultimately refuses to do (12:14).

The phrase “the God of their fathers” (11:16) is suggestive, almost an implicit censure of Jeroboam’s gods because they have no standing in Israel’s history. The influx of loyal priests and Levites and faithful Israelites from the northern tribal districts strengthens Rehoboam’s rule and bolsters morale in Judah (11:17a). For a brief time, unfortunately only three years, the kingdom of Judah demonstrates faith in God and obedience to his commandments after the manner modeled by David and Solomon (11:17b).

Rehoboam’s Family (11:18–23)

Rehoboam’s family (11:18–23). The report concerning the family of Rehoboam is unique to Chronicles. The insertion of the genealogical material may explain the cryptic reference to the records of Iddo the seer “that deal with genealogies” in the regnal résumé (12:15). Most biblical scholars recognize Mahalath (11:18) as a second cousin to Rehoboam. Since her father, Jerimoth, is nowhere mentioned as a son of David, presumably his mother is one of David’s concubines (cf. 1 Chron. 3:9). Mahalath’s mother, Abihail (2 Chron. 11:18), is the daughter of David’s oldest brother, Eliab (cf. 1 Chron. 2:13). This means her own parents are also second cousins within the family of Jesse.9 Nothing is known of Mahalath’s three sons (2 Chron. 11:19).

There is some question as to the identity of Maacah, Rehoboam’s beloved wife (11:21). It seems likely that she is the granddaughter of David’s son Absalom by his daughter Tamar (given Absalom’s untimely death, cf. 2 Sam. 14:27). A quick recall of Absalom’s own parentage reveals his mother’s name was Maacah as well, a princess from Geshur whom David married to seal an alliance with King Talmai (1 Chron. 3:2). The Chronicler reports the practice of polygamy in the Davidic dynasty as a matter of fact—apparently accepting the cultural convention (despite the Mosaic prohibition against kings taking many wives, Deut. 17:17). Thompson appropriately reminds us of the tragic aspect of polygamy in the inevitable favoritism shown to a particular wife in the harem.10 Typically in such marriages in the Old Testament, favoritism bred jealousy, jealousy hatred, and hatred too often resulted in destructive behavior patterns.

It should be noted, in addition to his own eighteen wives and sixty concubines (11:21), Rehoboam is responsible for supporting his father Solomon’s harem (since royal women were “property” of the state in perpetuity). This obligation may have had something to do with his decision to levy a tax hike on his subjects. Nothing is known of Maacah’s sons (11:20) except for Abijah, Rehoboam’s successor (12:16). Perhaps the Chronicler intends this “genealogical sidebar” as an apology of sorts, explaining why Abijah (the oldest son of Rehoboam’s favored wife) ascends to the throne. The appointment of Abijah as “chief prince among his brothers” (11:22) is tantamount to implementing a coregency for the purpose of guaranteeing an orderly transition of power when Rehoboam dies.

The concluding verse of the regnal résumé lauds Rehoboam’s wisdom in “dispersing some of his sons throughout the districts of Judah” (11:23). Rehoboam apparently imitates his father’s practice of delegation of royal authority by means of district governors (cf. 1 Kings 4:7–19), but he makes those appointments from princes within the royal household rather than from tribal leaders. The policy yields practical benefits: preventing the infighting experienced in David’s royal household by prospective successors to the throne, solidifying the king’s position, guarding against disloyalty in the form of an Absalom-like coup, ensuring an heir for the continuation of the dynasty (since housing the royal family in one location makes it easier for a usurper to execute all rivals), and extending the influence of the royal family to outlying districts.

Pharaoh Shishak Raids Judah (12:1–12)

Pharaoh Shishak raids Judah (12:1–12). The Chronicler’s report of the Egyptian invasion of Judah is based on the parallel in 1 Kings 14:21–28. The details concerning the size of Shishak’s army (12:3–4) and the speech of Shemaiah the prophet (12:5–8) have no parallel and represent an unknown source (perhaps “the records of Shemaiah” mentioned in 12:15). Pharaoh Shishak or Sheshonq I was the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty, and he reunified Upper and Lower Egypt. He ruled from 945–924 B.C., and his campaign into Palestine takes place during the fifth year of Rehoboam (925 B.C.). His own account of the campaign is inscribed on the walls of the temple of Karnak, according to which he sweeps through Judah and Israel as far north as the Valley of Jezreel and Megiddo, capturing more than 150 towns and villages along the way.11

The Chronicler understands Shishak’s invasion of Judah as punishment for sin, in that Rehoboam and all Israel have “abandoned the law of the LORD” (12:1). By “all Israel” the Chronicler means all the Israelites living in Judah (the “true” Israel), whether from northern or southern Hebrew tribal stock. The Chronicler assigns this breach of Judah’s faithfulness to Yahweh and the Egyptian raid into Palestine a cause-and-effect relationship, a clear indication of his acknowledgment of the God of the Hebrews as the sovereign Lord of history (12:2).

The reason for the lapse in Judah’s loyalty to Yahweh after three years of walking faithfully in the ways of David and Solomon is unclear (cf. 11:17). The phrase “he had become strong” (12:1) suggests that pride and self-reliance have replaced Rehoboam’s dependence on God. Perhaps Rehoboam has taken his initiatives to fortify the cities guarding Jerusalem too seriously (cf. 11:5–12), trusting in his own defensive measures rather than on God.

The expression “the law of the LORD” is usually understood to refer to a canonical corpus fixed by the time of the Chronicler (perhaps the Torah or law of Moses). In this case, being “unfaithful to the LORD” (12:2) has covenantal implications, thus explaining the enforcement of the curse formulas of the Mosaic law (cf. Deut. 28:45–52). The Chronicler’s inclusion of the “Sukkites” among the allies of Shishak attests to the antiquity of the sources for the report of Shishak’s campaign, since these Libyan warriors from the oases of the western desert are known primarily from Egyptian records of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.12

Shemaiah the prophet (12:5) is known as a “man of God” (11:2) and earlier warned Rehoboam not to wage war against the northern tribes of Israel after the split of Solomon’s kingdom (11:4). He now brings a message of both judgment (12:5) and mercy to Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah (12:7–8). The principle that God “abandons” those who “abandon” him is candidly presented and basic to the Chronicler’s theology (cf. 1 Chron. 28:9, 20; 2 Chron. 15:2; 24:20). The response by Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah that “the LORD is just” (2 Chron. 12:6) is essentially a confession of sin—an acknowledgment that God is in the right (cf. Dan. 9:14). God accepts this confession as an act of “humbling oneself” (2 Chron. 12:6–7), a form of repentance that brings the sinner back to God.

God mercifully decrees that Judah will experience a “qualified” deliverance from Shishak (12:7b), but they will not escape the consequences of their disobedience—they will “become subject to him [i.e., Shishak]” for a time (12:8). The so-called “school of hard knocks” is a trying way to learn that it is better to serve the Lord than to be subjects of a foreign king (12:8). At times God uses whatever means are necessary to teach his people important lessons about the nature of his covenant relationship with them (in this case “fearing” God and not Shishak, 12:5).

The report of the “treasures” of the Jerusalem temple and royal palace “carried off” by Shishak suggests the loot is given as tribute to “buy off” Shishak rather than taken as booty through war (12:9–11). It is even possible that an unhealthy fixation on these “treasures” may have been connected to Rehoboam’s unfaithfulness (since Israel’s kings were not to accumulate large amounts of silver and gold, cf. Deut 17:17). Beyond the fact that Judah is a diminished nation politically and economically after Shishak’s invasion, the reference to the confiscation of Solomon’s gold shields, subsequently replaced by bronze replicas, emphasizes the loss of Israel’s splendor (cf. 1 Kings 10:16–17; 2 Chron. 9:15–16).

The split of Solomon’s kingdom signals the end of Israel’s “golden age” both figuratively and literally. The harsh consequences of divine retribution for disobedience to Yahweh’s covenant is no doubt meant as a “wake-up” call to both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The Shishak episode illustrates what can (and sadly does) happen again in Israelite history. The message has currency for the Chronicler’s audience as well since God is still the sovereign Lord of history, and postexilic Israel is still bound to him in covenant relationship.

Selman regards the last verse of the report of Shishak’s raid into Judah (12:12) as a summary of the Chronicler’s review of Rehoboam’s entire reign.13 The act of Rehoboam’s humbling himself before God recalls events associated with the Egyptian invasion of Judah (esp. Rehoboam’s response to the speech of the prophet Shemaiah, 12:6–7). The ambiguous phrase “there was some good in Judah” seems to look back to those three years when Rehoboam and Judah imitated the faithfulness of David and Solomon (esp. 11:13–17).

The word “humbled himself” (Niphal of knʿ, 12:12) means to forsake one’s pride and yield in self-denying loyalty to God. This action appeases God’s wrath and spares Rehoboam and Judah from total destruction. God delivers on his promise to respond with forgiveness and healing to those who humble themselves before him in prayer (7:14). The message of “humbling oneself” before God and receiving forgiveness and healing remains pertinent for the Chronicler and his audience. This will become the gist of John the Baptist’s preaching (cf. Luke 3:2–9).

Concluding Regnal Résumé (12:13–16)

Concluding regnal résumé (12:13–16). The regnal résumé of King Rehoboam’s reign repeats the summary found in 1 Kings 14:21–22, 29–31. The Chronicler reorders the material by combining the opening and closing résumés of the Kings’ narrative into one concluding résumé. The typical formulas are intact: the length of reign, accession age, mother’s name, citation of historical source(s), death and burial, and succession. Rehoboam’s reign is dated variously between 937 and 913 B.C. Our study dates his seventeen-year rule from 930–913 B.C.

There are two notable variations in Chronicles, one theological and one bibliographic. (1) The theological review in 1 Kings 14:22 indicts the people of Judah for the blatant religious apostasy during Rehoboam’s reign. By contrast, the Chronicler places blame for idolatry directly on Rehoboam, even adding the commentary that the king “had not set his heart on seeking the LORD” (2 Chron. 12:14). The spiritual posture of setting one’s heart on seeking the Lord is a theme in this literary unit, with Rehoboam serving as a foil for both Asa and Jehoshaphat, whose hearts are fully devoted to the Lord (see 15:17; 17:6). The expression “to seek [drš] the LORD” in Chronicles refers to one’s overall inclination and habits for spiritual things, whether faith in God or self-reliance. Implicit in the Chronicler’s commentary on Rehoboam is the call for his audience to take inventory so as to set their hearts on seeking the Lord.

(2) The Chronicler substitutes two prophetic sources in his citation of the historical formula for “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” found in 1 Kings 14:29 (see 2 Chron. 12:15). The “records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer” may have been sections contained in other documents (like “the annals of the kings of Judah”) or an even larger compendium of the monarchy’s archival materials. The Chronicler’s citation of additional historical sources may help explain why his account of Rehoboam’s reign is three times longer than the parallel in 1 Kings. Moreover, these references indicate the breadth of historical sources available to the Chronicler as well as a concern for accuracy in his reporting.

The regnal résumé in Chronicles omits the second reference to Rehoboam’s Ammonite mother, Naamah (12:13; cf. 1 Kings 14:21, 31). This is likely for stylistic reasons, although the Chronicler’s understanding of any direct relationship between Rehoboam’s evil ways and the influence of his non-Hebrew mother is unclear. Given the importance the Chronicler attaches to the death and burial formula, however, Selman views the omission of the fact that Rehoboam is buried with his ancestors as a negative assessment of the king (2 Chron. 12:16; cf. 1 Kings 14:31, “buried with his ancestors,” so NRSV; NIV reads “buried with them” [i.e., “his fathers”]).14

Toward Bridging Contexts

Toward bridging contexts. The Chronicles are all about the relevance of earlier Israelite history for the writer’s generation. That relevance is demonstrated by the example of God’s people of a bygone era and includes especially the relevance of obedience to God’s Word, the relevance of prayer to the God of heaven, and the relevance of proper worship at Yahweh’s temple. For the Chronicler, the applicability of earlier Israelite history for postexilic Judah includes the currency of the prophetic voice for the spiritual and moral well-being of God’s people, despite the fact that the voice of God’s prophets and prophetesses has not been heard for perhaps a century or more by the time the Chronicler retells the story of Israel’s kingship. Second Chronicles 10–12, summarizing the reign of Rehoboam, points toward the contemporary significance of the larger literary unit (10:1–21:3) by calling attention to the negative example of Solomon’s son in his inability to “listen” to advice (10:8, 13, 15, 16). Rejecting the message of God’s sage or the prophet quickly makes a relevant word irrelevant!

King Abijah (13:1–14:1)

Bridging Contexts

RELEVANCE OF THE PROPHETS. The Chronicles are all about the relevance of the example of God’s people of a bygone era for the writer’s generation. That relevance includes especially obedience to God’s word, prayer to the God of heaven, and proper worship at Yahweh’s temple. For the Chronicler, the applicability of earlier history for postexilic Judah includes the currency of the prophetic voice for the spiritual and moral well-being of God’s people—despite the fact that the voice of God’s prophets and prophetesses has not been heard for perhaps a century by his time. The profound relevance of the prophetic voice for the Chronicler’s audience is captured in Jehoshaphat’s exhortation to Judah before engaging the Moabite and Ammonite coalition in battle: “Have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (20:20).

But who are the Israelite prophets and prophetesses? In many ways, the ranks of the prophetic corps in the Old Testament are filled with ordinary men and women. Many are anonymous figures, nameless voices faithfully proclaiming a message from God. Often these individuals appear only briefly in the biblical narrative, “on stage” for but a few lines. Yet at times they “steal the show” with a rhetorical question, a homespun parable, a dramatic object lesson, or even an outrageous claim challenging the status quo.

The prophets represent a cross-section of Israelite society, whether a farmer like Amos or a “blue-blood” like Isaiah. But blue-collar and white-collar prophet alike, these ordinary individuals exhibit an extraordinary faith in God and an unswerving faithfulness to the proclamation of his word. Oftentimes they speak to their own peril (as Jeremiah could attest). But they are truly human too, as their ministries are not without lapses of doubt and fits of disobedience (as Jonah could attest).

Jewish scholar Rabbi Heschel raises the question: “What manner of person is the prophet of God?” Part of his answer includes the following list of prophetic characteristics. It is offered here as an example for Christians because that is how the Chronicler portrays the prophets for his audience—exemplary figures of faith in God:

• a spirit scandalized by evil because of their keen sensitivity to holiness (Hab. 1:3)

• a consuming passion with the “trivialities” of life because everything related to the plight of humanity is important (Amos 2:7)

• a sometimes “explosive” and volatile personality—a sharp sword and a polished arrow (Hos. 6:5)

• the pursuit of the highest good—love, justice, and righteousness (Jer. 9:23–24; Zech. 4:6)

• an iconoclastic posture—a willingness to challenge the apparently holy, the seemingly sacred, the patently traditional (Jer. 7:4)

• a burden for people arising out of divinely motivated compassion (Hos. 1–3)

• a life of paradox blending loneliness and misery with joy and elation (Jer. 15:16; 20:9)

• the courage to confront God with honest doubt (Hab. 1:2–3, 12)

• a willingness to wait on God in prayer (Hab. 2:1–2).60

What role does the prophetic voice play in Old Testament times? The functions of God’s prophet or prophetess in Hebrew society vary somewhat, depending on the time frame of that individual’s ministry. (1) The prophetic voice prior to the beginning of the monarchy is represented by figures like Moses, Deborah, and even Samuel, each of whom served as a spokesperson for God and as a leader for his people, often in the office of judge. The Hebrew judge frequently filled duties in multiple roles, including that of legal magistrate, military general, civil leader, and spiritual overseer.

(2) The preclassical or nonwriting prophets ministered to both the kings and the people during the united and divided monarchies as spokespersons for God and as political and spiritual advisers. Representative examples of the preclassical prophetic voice include individuals like Nathan, Elijah, and Micaiah the son of Imlah from this very unit (cf. 18:8). The prophetic speeches recorded in Chronicles, with a single exception (24:20–22), portray the prophets and Huldah the prophetess primarily as advisers to the king (see fig. 2 in the introduction).

(3) The classical or writing prophets stood watch during the eras of the divided monarchies (e.g., Hosea, Amos, Isaiah), the Exile (e.g., Jeremiah and Ezekiel), and the early postexilic periods (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah). They too were spokespersons for God and acted primarily as social and spiritual commentators.

What is the form of the prophetic message? Broadly understood, three types of speech are identifiable in the prophetic books of the Old Testament: historical accounts, prophetic utterances, and prayers. The prophetic speeches of the classical or writing prophets are often separated into two basic types of oracles: the judgment oracle and the salvation oracle.61 The judgment-oracle category may be further subdivided into indictment and judgment oracles, and the salvation-oracle category may be subdivided into instruction and aftermath oracles.62 The indictment oracle rehearses the offenses of the guilty party (whether an individual or a nation), and the judgment oracle cites the divine punishment to be meted out. The instruction oracle exhorts the guilty to respond to the threat of divine judgment, often a call to repentance. The aftermath oracle offers the promise of future hope in the form of deliverance from an enemy and restoration after destruction.

The four oracle categories are foundational as a basic outline of the message of many of the writing prophets. For example, this oracle pattern undergirds the macrostructure of Hosea: account of Hosea’s marriage (Hos. 1–3), indictment (chs. 4–5), instruction (ch. 6), judgment (chs. 7–13), and aftermath (ch. 14). Also in Amos we have indictment (Amos 1–4), instruction (ch. 5), judgment (chs. 6–8), and aftermath (ch. 9). The essential idea of the judgment and salvation oracles may be seen in the prophetic speeches recorded in Chronicles, whether defeat for the king (i.e., judgment oracle; e.g., 12:5–8; 18:12–22) or success for the king (i.e., salvation oracle; e.g., 15:1–7; 16:7–9).

The Old Testament prophets are typically associated with prediction, foretelling the future of Israel and the nations by means of cryptic apocalyptic visions. It is true that at times the Hebrew prophets pronounce oracles forecasting both near and distant future events of Israelite history. This type of prophetic speech is often couched in phrases like “the day of the LORD”—examples include Elijah’s forecast of drought in Israel (1 Kings 17:1) and Isaiah’s promise of Jerusalem’s restoration under Yahweh’s servant King Cyrus (Isa. 45:1). Among the key themes of prophetic foretelling are the promises of future deliverance and restoration of Israel, the judgment of the wicked, the new covenant, a coming messiah-king like David who will rule in righteousness, and the hope of a new creation.

Prognostication, however, is not the primary emphasis of the ministry of the prophets as only 20 percent or so of prophetic speech in the Old Testament is predictive. The bulk of prophetic speech is forthtelling or interpretive exposition. This type of prophetic speech consists of instruction, admonition, and exhortation based on Mosaic law. The prophets not only serve as expositors of the Mosaic tradition, but they are also social and political commentators. King Ahab called Elijah the prophet a “troubler” of Israel (1 Kings 18:17)—and indeed the title is fitting because the prophets were the “conscience” of both Israelite kings and society. The repeated themes of prophetic speech include the call to repentance and a return to true worship, the practice of social justice, the rejection of immorality, and reliance on Yahweh rather than on false gods and foreign alliances.

There are seventeen prophetic speeches in Chronicles made by fourteen named prophets, one named prophetess, and two unnamed prophets. Fourteen of the prophetic speeches are directed to kings, one to the Israelite army, and two to the general populace of Judah. Apart from Nathan’s oracle concerning the Davidic covenant (1 Chron. 17), the predominant message of these speeches is one of either the proclamation of success and deliverance or warning and judgment for the kings. Their primary purpose is to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to the Davidic covenant and his concern for the success of Davidic rule in Judah.

But why would Jehoshaphat encourage his people to “have faith” in God’s prophets? For the simple fact that the word of prophets is inextricably bound to God himself, as the full quotation of Jehoshaphat’s exhortation reveals: “Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (20:20). To have faith in God’s prophets is tantamount to having faith in God because they are commissioned as his servants to speak his word to Israel and the nations. Support for this understanding is found in two related biblical ideas, that of the divine assembly and the form of prophetic speech patterns.

The concept of a divine assembly is found in the religious literature of the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamian literature the divine assembly is comprised of the gods and goddesses of the pantheon and their angelic attendants. This assembly met, often after feasting, to discuss and determine the fate of the course of human events. Their decision was then duly pronounced and executed on earth. In Mesopotamian religion the executor of the will of the divine council was the storm god Enlil.63

A similar notion may be found in the Hebrew understanding of the heavenly realm. Cryptic references in the Psalms mention the assembly of the holy ones who surround God (Ps. 29:1; 89:5, 7). The abode of Yahweh is depicted as a heavenly throne room; in addition to the Godhead this divine council is comprised of his angelic attendants, including the four living creatures and angels of other ranks and descriptions (cf. Isa. 6:1–3; Ezek. 1:4–10). The council of Yahweh makes and enforces decrees concerning the operation of the cosmos. The angelic members of the council are often sent as envoys of God to deliver his messages and his decrees (e.g., “the angel of the LORD” [malʾak yhwh] in Ex. 3:2; Judg. 13:13, 15; angels [malʾak] like Gabriel, Dan. 8:16).

Micaiah is an example of God’s prophet invited by means of a vision to observe the divine assembly in action and who then reports the message of the “lying prophets” to Ahab and Jehoshaphat (18:18–22). In fact, the most frequently used term for the “prophet” (nabiʾ ) denotes this idea of the messenger from the divine council since it essentially means “one who speaks for another” as a representative of that authority. The Israelite prophet, then, in one sense stood in the divine assembly as a messenger of the council, heard God’s word, and was then commissioned to deliver it to his people. This explains why their oracles are usually delivered in the past tense—it is a message they have already heard, and because it was spoken by God himself, it would assuredly come to pass.

Typically the speech patterns of the Old Testament prophets are characterized by highly repetitive formulaic language. These stock phrases and expressions are cues to the audience as to the divine source and authority of their message and to the authenticity and integrity of the divine messenger. Here are the more prominent formulas of the prophetic speech pattern:

• the messenger formula (lit., “thus says Yahweh”; NIV = “this is what the LORD says,” 2 Chron. 20:15)

• the prophetic word formula (“the word of the LORD came to me,” e.g., 1 Chron. 17:3; 2 Chron. 12:7)

• the divine utterance formula (“declares the LORD,” e.g., 2 Chron. 34:27)

• the revelation formula (“the LORD showed” or “the LORD spoke,” e.g., 1 Chron. 21:27; 2 Chron. 33:10; cf. 36:12)

• the proclamation formula (“hear the word of the LORD,” e.g., 18:18).64

The idea of a messenger sent from the divine council to relay God’s word heard in the assembly of the holy ones culminates in Jesus Christ. The prophet Malachi foretold of a day when God would send a “messenger” (malʾak) before his appearance at the Jerusalem temple (Mal. 3:1). Jesus identified John the Baptist as that messenger or prophetic forerunner of Messiah (Matt. 11:10–14). Beyond this, Jesus claims a position in the Godhead when he announces that the temple is indeed his Father’s house (John 2:16). Later Peter ascribes the prophetic office to Jesus when he recognizes him as “a prophet” like Moses to the onlookers after the healing of the crippled beggar (Acts 3:22; cf. Deut. 18:18). Finally, Jesus indicates on several occasions that he was sent from the heavenly realm by his Father, that he spoke only what he heard from the Father, and that he did only what his Father commanded him (John 5:30, 36–38; 6:33, 38). As the ultimate messenger of God’s “divine assembly,” Jesus Christ (“who is at the Father’s side”) not only makes known the decrees of God but reveals God himself (1:18).

The relevance of the story of the prophets’ interface with the kings of Israel and Judah for the Chronicler’s audience is in the response to their message. From King Saul to King Zedekiah, the story of the kingship is one of either faith or unbelief in the message of God’s prophets. In the end, the sorry epitaph for each of the divided kingdoms includes a fatal byline referencing the fact that the people ignore “his prophets” to their own destruction (2 Kings 17:23; 2 Chron. 36:16). Nehemiah sternly reminds postexilic Judah of the suicidal stubbornness of their ancestors as an admonition or warning of his own, lest history be repeated (Neh. 9:30).

The Chronicler must have shared the same concern, since the response to God’s prophets by both king and people sets the tone for the latter portion of his history (2 Chron. 10–36). Now the people must heed God’s prophets by obeying their word as inscripturated in the corpus of the Hebrew canon. Thus, the relevance of the prophets for postexilic Judah becomes associated with responding to God’s messages as preserved in the prophetic writings and taught to the people. For the Chronicler, the exhortation to “have faith in his prophets” (20:20) is a “wake-up” call to prevent the neglect of the prophetic writings found in the Scriptures. Jesus told his own audience as much in their clamor for convincing signs, even resurrection from the dead: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them” (Luke 16:29).

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

BELIEVING THE PROPHETS. One of the “buzz words” in contemporary culture is “relevance.” Whether education, politics, or even religion, people are looking for relevance. This is cultural, in part due to American pragmatism. The demand for productivity and efficiency driven by technological advances contributes to the quest for relevance as well. Finally, the high value placed on “relevance” is in some measure a reaction to modernity by a culture drifting with a postmodern current. Modernism’s irrelevance stems from its tendency to define a person as a rational human being. Postmodernity prefers to define a person in terms of emotional and spiritual qualities. In either case, however, the emphasis is still largely on the individual, and in that sense the postmodern desire for personal relevance is a carryover from the modernist culture of narcissism.

But what is meant by the term relevance? It denotes “direct relationship to the matter at hand, practicality, pertinence, currency, and applicability.” The connotation of relevance in today’s society is informed not by the dictionary definition but by the entrepreneurial culture of the business and marketing sector of American life. Relevance in the business world is defined by degrees in terms of “customer satisfaction.” The success or failure of any business is dependent on its responsiveness to the consumer. A business can only be as responsive as it is effective in discerning perceived customer needs and articulating those needs through the various levels of the corporate hierarchy. In both cases success is contingent on relevant communication, first in accurate polling of consumer demand and second in efficient dissemination of that information up the organizational ladder.65

The notion of relevance is extremely important to the Christian subculture as well. For some time now the Christian church has struggled to retain its distinctive identity as the people of God, all the while attempting to keep the pews filled with “satisfied customers.”66 Beyond this, church-growth gurus identify a vibrant pulpit ministry as a high priority item on the checklist of the “church consumer.” Not surprisingly, a quick review of any of the numerous guides to preaching available reveals that “relevance” is vital to effective pulpit communication.

Haddon Robinson, for instance, insists that “apart from life-related, biblical content we have nothing worth communicating” (italics added).67 The continuing success of the “life-application” type of study Bible is another indicator of the value the Christian community places on relevance, in this case the immediate practicality of biblical truth to the individual’s life situation. The influence of postmodernism thought has even generated a demand for more relevance in corporate worship experiences in our Christian churches. What is meant by relevant worship is worship that is more in step with the contemporary culture, worship that fosters the experience of mystery, worship that is participatory, worship that appreciates the inter-relatedness of all things, and worship that communicates through the visual.68

The idea of relevance is not a recent cultural invention. People, whether living in an ancient, modern, or postmodern society, seek relevance because at some level “theory” and “practice” must overlap for life to have meaning and purpose. For instance, the psalmist Asaph laments the seeming incongruity between the “theory” (or theology) of the Mosaic law that obedience to God’s commandments results in divine blessing and disobedience yields divine punishment (e.g., Ps. 73:13–14; cf. Deut. 28). He questions the relevance (or practicality) of punishment “every morning” as his reward for the life of “innocence” and purity that he seeks to live in adherence to Yahweh’s covenant commands. The prophet Malachi’s audience registers a similar complaint when they challenge the relevance of a theology that “blesses” the arrogant while the righteous languish in futility (Mal. 3:14–15). Much later, the apostle Peter anticipates the relevance question when he warns Christians against siding with the scoffers who find no pertinence in the teaching of Jesus’ second coming (2 Peter 3:3–4).

In fact, if Chronicles is indeed a “theology of hope” for postexilic Judah, then in one sense the two books are all about the relevance of earlier Hebrew history for the contemporary generation. For the Chronicler, that relevance or applicability is found in things like the example of humble obedience to the commandments found in God’s Word, the efficacy of heartfelt prayer to the Lord God of heaven when trouble looms large on the horizon, or the experience of joy associated with the proper worship of Yahweh at his temple. There is even relevance in listening to the prophetic voice: “Have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (2 Chron. 20:20c). This is so because to “have faith in his prophets” is to “have faith in the LORD your God” (20:20b). Faith in God is always relevant because true and purposeful life can only be found by believing God—taking him at his word (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4).

The word “success” communicates in any age. The context of Jehoshaphat’s prayer is that of success in a military battle (20:20). The Chronicler understands, however, that it is God alone who grants success to individuals and nations.69 Here I suggest that the oracles of the Old Testament prophets are always relevant or continually have currency for the life of faith in God. This is true not because they predict “success,” but because like Jehoshaphat’s exhortation they call to people to “have faith in the LORD … God” (20:20). This is hardly a new concept. R. B. Y. Scott was touting the relevance of the Old Testament prophets five decades ago in what might now be considered his “minor classic” by that title.70

But why are the Old Testament prophets relevant, and what makes their message spoken to ancient Israel more than twenty-five centuries ago applicable to contemporary culture? According to Scott, the remarkable contemporaneity of these ancient figures and the perennial freshness of their message spring from several distinctive characteristics:

• their power to penetrate past the maze of appearances to identify the essential underlying human and theological facts of a given circumstance or historical situation

• their ability to define essential justice and essential religion amid moral confusion, secular influence, and human waywardness

• their shrewd understanding of human nature and the human predicament as a result of their suffering (what at times is called the “prophetic pathos”)

• their sensitivity to the urgent meaning of history as the sphere of humanity’s moral decisions and God’s preemptory intervention

• their knowledge of God as the fountainhead of ultimate meaning and purpose in the context of everyday life

• their intuitive comprehension of the reality of God’s presence in the inner world of their own heart and spirit

• their capacity to communicate concretely, in universal terms, and with both passion and conviction—to speak with divine authority by the power of God’s Spirit as choice servants commissioned by God—unlike their rivals, who told “fortunes for money” (Mic. 3:11; cf. Amos 3:8; Mic. 3:8)71

Scott has also provided numerous categories for the contemporary application of the message of the Old Testament prophets:

• history: The key ideas here include the sovereignty of God as the one who “sets up kings and deposes them” (Dan. 2:21), God’s redemptive purpose in human history for both judgment and salvation (cf. Isa. 52:7; Jer. 51:29), and the notion that biblical history is both cyclical (cf. Eccl. 3:1–8) and linear (the terminus of human history is implicit in the phrase “the day of the LORD,” cf. Isa. 65:17).

• social order: Individual behavior matters—the prophetic voice held people accountable for their deeds and espoused an agenda for social justice rooted in the teachings of the Sinai covenant (e.g., Jer. 11:4–5; Amos 4:1; 5:11).

• religion: Essential religion in the Old Testament was personal and communal (exemplified in the lives and ministries of prophets like Jeremiah and Hosea) and covenantal (cf. Jer. 31:31–33); it emphasized the knowledge of God and personal holiness (cf. Isa. 29:23; 35:8), demanded a whole-person response of love and obedience in worship (cf. 1:10–20), and issued in actions that promoted social justice (cf. Amos 5:23–24; Mic. 6:6–8).

• theology: For the Old Testament prophetess or prophet, theology was all about the “knowledge” of God (Hos. 6:3), and they knew God as an immanent and transcendent deity (cf. Isa. 57:15: 66:2), as a consuming fire in his holiness (cf. 30:27), and as a refuge in his goodness (cf. Nah. 1:7); his revelation was rooted in historical reality (as seen in the date formulas introducing prophetic oracles, e.g., Isa. 6:1), the prophetic ministry was a call to spiritual warfare (cf. 1 Kings 18), and both divine punishment for sin and divine mercy as a means of grace were realities in God’s providential rule of creation (cf. Isa. 54:7).

• preaching: The authority of prophetic preaching resides in the faithful proclamation of the word of the Lord (validated in the messenger formula, such as “this is what the LORD says,” Jer. 2:5); the essential message of prophetic preaching is repentance (e.g., Joel 2:12–13); the medium of prophetic preaching is both word and image (as seen in the object lesson of Jeremiah’s linen belt [Jer. 13:1–11] or the example of the “living parable” of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer as the illustration of God’s call of repentance to Israel [Hos. 1–3]).

• culture: The prophetic school was called to “contextualize” their message from God by means of incarnational preaching, teaching, and confirming miraculous signs—living in and ministering to people in their cultural setting (as seen in the example of Elijah’s living among the indigenous Canaanite peoples and demonstrating Yahweh’s supremacy over Baal in his supposed domains of fire, food, and life itself, cf. 1 Kings 17–18).

• politics: The prophets of God were called at times to an “iconoclastic” ministry with respect to the religious and political offices and institutions of Hebrew society; they were also the “conscience” of both priest and king as they decried the exercise of social power without social responsibility—religion and government must serve the common welfare (Hos. 4:1–3; Amos 2:6–7; cf. Jas. 1:27).72

A word of caution is in order here before we rush off to apply the message of the Old Testament prophets to our contemporary setting. We are well served by Scott’s admonition that it is presumptuous to speak of the relevance of the prophets apart from the knowledge of their message.73 They do not speak of our age but to it because the word of Yahweh is in their mouths as his messengers.

But here is the rub: I fear we do not know the message of the prophets. Granted, my perceptions are based largely on two decades of service as a professor of Old Testament studies at three different Christian liberal arts colleges. Yet, I am inclined to surmise that many of our Protestant “free church” traditions perpetuate a “practical Marcionism” because they send students to college who have little or no acquaintance with the Old Testament story. Naturally, the home and the church must work together in the biblical education of Christian young people, and the impact of Christian “home schooling” and Christian elementary and high school education is encouraging. But the general lack of Old Testament knowledge among students entering Christian colleges is a disturbing trend. Most students in an entry-level Old Testament class cannot find the book of Habakkuk in their Bible, let alone articulate its message. Yet the message of this prophet was foundational to the Protestant Reformation (cf. Hab. 2:4).

Perhaps the significance of the “prophetic voices” in this section of Chronicles is not the application of their message to our times but an exhortation to find out what that message was so we can then make contemporary application. King Jehoshaphat’s charge to “have faith in his prophets” (20:20) is still our directive in the sense that we too accept the Old Testament prophets as Yahweh’s clarions, trumpeting his Word to God’s faithful across the generations. The Chronicler would call us to “have faith” in God’s prophets to the point where we indeed believe that they were divinely commissioned messengers who spoke the very words of God. Scott has ably demonstrated that the Old Testament prophetic voice is still relevant to the Christian life so that like Ezekiel’s countrymen, we should “gather around” the prophet to hear “the message that has come from the LORD” (cf. Ezek. 33:30). Unlike Ezekiel’s audience, however, who only listened to the words of God’s prophets as a form of entertainment, we must be willing to “put them into practice” (33:31).

One way for the Christian church to “gather around” the Hebrew prophets is to utilize the prophetic books of the Old Testament on a regular basis—thus giving credence to Paul’s instruction to be devoted “to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Adopting the tradition of the more liturgical Christian churches of including both Old and New Testament readings in a systematic way is one helpful approach to ensuring some balance in the use of Scripture in corporate worship. In fact, Robert Webber encourages more public reading of Scripture as one way to renew the service of the Word in corporate worship.74

The Christological focus of worship may be recovered through the reenactment of the Christ-event by means of recitation (the reading and preaching of Scripture) and drama (gathering at the table of the Lord’s Supper). The Old Testament must be included in this recitation of God’s work through Christ because we learn that the things written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were about Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24:44). I concur with Webber when he says, “I want someone to read [i.e., Scripture] who knows how to read, and I want the person who preaches to communicate to me.”75 The church is slowly learning how to implement the “lively reading” of Scripture in corporate worship by taking a page out of the Chronicler’s “handbook” for Levitical ministry. This is being accomplished, in part, by utilizing the gifts of those individuals who have capacities to memorize biblical passages and deliver them as dramatic presentations, by “reader’s theater” approaches that incorporate people who “know how to read,” and by the antiphonal singing and chanting of biblical texts.

In addition to the public reading of the Old Testament as a part of the Scripture lessons in the service of the Word in corporate worship, the corpus of the Old Testament prophets must also be a resource for Christian preaching. Again, according to Webber, “people need to experience the immediacy of the Word of God. They need to know that the God who acted in history can be active now, touching their lives, healing their hurts, and giving them a vision for the future.”76 Since all Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16, in context a reference to the Old Testament) and since those things “written in the past” were written to “teach” (Rom. 15:4) and “warn” (1 Cor. 10:11) us, clearly Christians can experience the “immediacy” of God’s Word from the preaching of the Old Testament as well as the New. As John Bright has cogently argued,

the normative element in the Old Testament, and its abiding authority as the Word of God, rests not in its laws and customs, its institutions and ancient patterns of thinking, nor yet in the characters and events of which its history tell, but in that structure of theology which undergirds each of its texts and which is caught up in the New Testament and announced as fulfilled in Jesus Christ.77

More specifically, Duduit has suggested the following reasons for preaching the Old Testament as part of a balanced and effective pulpit ministry:

• It aids us in understanding the New Testament (indeed, one-third of the New Testament is Old Testament quotation or allusion or explication).

• It is vital for a balanced understanding of biblical theology.

• It offers practical insights for Christian living.

• It deals with life’s great questions.

• It leads us to Jesus Christ.78

The Word of God, including the Old Testament prophets, remains “living and active.… It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The Word of God has a “prophetic ministry” in the heart of its hearer or reader; how much more does the “sharpened sword” and “polished arrow” (Isa. 49:2) of Old Testament prophets enhance that “prophetic ministry.”

The practical benefits of exploring the relevance of the Old Testament prophets for the Christian church are timely, even crucial as modernity gives way to postmodernity. This is true primarily because the ideology of religious pluralism is the shared common denominator between the cultural contexts of the biblical prophets and contemporary North American society. Reclaiming the prophetic mantle is relevant for the church in at least three important ways:

(1) Our acquaintance with the Old Testament prophets will help raise awareness and appreciation for the message of their contemporary counterparts—men and women who stand in their tradition of proclaiming God’s Word of admonition and exhortation to the righteous and repentance to the unrighteous (cf. 2 Peter 1:12–21).

(2) Sound instruction in the Spirit-spawned message of the Old Testament prophets contributes to the cultivation of the spiritual discipline of testing or discerning the spirits for the purpose of exposing false teachers and false teaching (cf. 1 John 4:1–3).

(3) The preaching and teaching of the Old Testament prophets as part of the “whole counsel of God” may encourage a new generation of “prophets” and “prophetesses” to take on the mantle of calling people to repentance and serving as the moral conscience of the surrounding culture (cf. Eph. 4:11). Jehoshaphat’s charge to Judah before going to battle against the Moabite and Ammonite coalition still has relevance for God’s people: “Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful” (20:20).