Original Meaning

Jeroboam Made King over Israel (12:1–24)

DYNASTIC SUCCESSION DID not have an established procedure in the early days of the kingdom. Solomon had to overcome the forces of Adonijah in succeeding David to the throne. In the same way Rehoboam, son of Solomon, has to travel to Shechem to develop a consensus on his claim to the throne. Shechem was the original center of tribal commitment to the rule of Yahweh, their covenant god. Deuteronomy was structured around the requirement of a tribal commitment at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, where Shechem was located (Deut. 11:29–32; 27:1–14). The fulfillment of this requirement was made a central point in the arrangement of the book of Joshua. Immediately after entering the land the assembly at Shechem fulfills the requirement of Deuteronomy (Josh. 8:30–35). Joshua concludes with a lengthy description of this assembly (24:1–27); an enduring monument was placed there as a memorial to the covenant that not only maintained the unity of the tribes but their faithfulness to serving Yahweh. If Rehoboam is to secure the loyalty of the northern tribes, he must do so at Shechem.

When Rehoboam arrives in Shechem, the representatives of the northern tribes, referred to as “the whole assembly of Israel,” begin negotiations to gain concessions from the heavy load of taxation and conscripted service. The king is not at liberty to make an independent decision on this vital matter. He sets a time of three days to take counsel with the “elders” and the “young men,” two groups who have a critical role in the political process.

Elders traditionally exercised considerable influence in royal decisions. When Ben Hadad, king of Aram of Damascus, attacked Samaria, the elders were decisive in rejecting his harsh terms of surrender (1 Kings 20:7–9). When Absalom revolted against David, the elders of Israel were an influential force in critical decisions (2 Sam. 17:4, 15; 19:11). These elders were distinguished from officials, nobles, and guardians (Judg. 8:14; 1 Kings 21:8; 2 Kings 10:5) who had official roles in governance.

The “young men” are described as those who have grown up with Rehoboam (12:8). This designation has a parallel to an Egyptian term referring to the children of officials and palace personnel. Evidence of Israelite court officials indicates that such “young men” are descendants of officials and courtiers of both royal and nonroyal descent who serve in various capacities.2 Since Rehoboam is forty-one years old when he becomes king (14:21), they are not particularly youth. They belong to another generation and have different values from the more experienced elders. The elders held some type of official standing during the days of Solomon (12:6), and it is likely that the “young men” also had a high standing in the court. It is not apparent that these two groups are official bodies that convene to render decisions on vital matters,3 but the king needs the support of one of these groups before he can proceed with a decision.

As might be expected, the opinions of the two groups of advisors are diametrically opposed. The elders, well tempered by years of political experience, urge moderation; they remind the king that he is the servant of the people (12:7), and only by acting in that capacity can he expect the people to be willing to serve him. The younger princes, having enjoyed a sense of power and status all of their lives, urge the new king to proceed in an autocratic manner, using political force to increase control over the populace. Their rhetoric is designed to inspire fear: “My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist” (v. 10); “my father chastised you with whips, I will use scorpions” (v. 11). The sting of the “scorpion” is apparently a weighted or spiked lash that can be wielded by a taskmaster. The younger counselors see no need for conciliation. They cannot conceive of a leader as a servant to the people.

Rehoboam chooses not to follow the counsel of the elders. Though this is a foolish political choice, it is not just politics that influences his choice. The values of the covenant and the role of the king as a brother have already been lost by Solomon. The judgment of the prophets has already been declared; this turn of events is from Yahweh’s fulfilling the declarations of the prophet Ahijah (v. 15). Yet it is wrong to interpret this statement as divine control over Rehoboam’s mind. Rehoboam has no inner desire to follow Yahweh or the way of the covenant. He makes choices in accordance with his own values, which he has learned through his father.

Rehoboam proceeds to follow the path of political coercion and sends Adoram, the commissioner over those conscripted into royal service, to deal with the unrest. Adoram may be an abbreviation of Adoniram, the commissioner who regulated the conscripted workers during the time of Solomon (4:6). Whether or not he is known from an earlier regime, the people are in no mood to listen to new policies for regular terms of state service. They kill him, and Rehoboam flees to Jerusalem.

Rehoboam has not lost all capacity to respect the prophetic word. In accordance with the advice of the “young men,” Rehoboam prepares a considerable army to enforce his will over the rebellious tribes (12:21). A godly man named Shemaiah reminds him that though these tribes have rejected his rule, they are still brothers of the covenant. Their rejection of his rule is not a judgment against them, but the evidence of a divine judgment against Rehoboam himself. Rehoboam respects this judgment sufficiently to refrain from further political conflict and self-destruction.

The death of Solomon and the revolt of the northern tribes provides the occasion for Jeroboam to return from his exile in Egypt and assume leadership over the new political entity of Israel (12:20). His role in the revolt has been a matter of considerable discussion. It seems that Jeroboam is not summoned to the assembly until after the murder of Adoram, when it becomes known he has returned from Egypt (v. 20). Earlier references to Jeroboam indicate he is present during the negotiations at Shechem (vv. 2–3, 12). Presumably, Jeroboam has had a role in inspiring the verdict that Israel has no inheritance in the dynasty of David (12:16).

Innovations in the Northern Kingdom (12:25–32)

Bridging Contexts

LONG-STANDING DIVISIONS. David’s kingdom suffered from internal conflict even while it was emerging as a powerful empire in Palestine. Absalom shook the foundations of the kingdom in gaining the sympathy of the most influential people by taking advantage of the tribal institutions of eldership that David had transcended in a unified state (2 Sam. 15:13). David was forced to take refuge in Mahanaim in Transjordan, which was generally interested in a strong central monarchy. However, the deep division between Israel and Judah surfaced on his return, with David reliant mainly on his kinsmen in Judah and unable to internally unite them in one monarchical administration (19:15, 40–43). The action resulted in the revolt of Sheba the son of Bichri (20:1–2). Joab was able to stamp out the revolt without destroying any Israelite cities, but the internal division between Israel and Judah remained.

The words of Sheba in his rejection of David (2 Sam. 20:1) came to be used against Rehoboam after the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12:16):

What share do we have in David,

what part in Jesse’s son?

To your tents, O Israel!

Look after your own house, O David!

Poetic sayings like this circulated widely in oral form and were long remembered because they expressed deeply held feelings during the time of the united monarchy. This saying appears to be the converse of an earlier saying used to rally support for David. The Chronicler provides such a saying at the center of a chapter designed to show growing support for David (1 Chron. 12:18):

We are yours, O David!

We are with you, O son of Jesse!

Success, success to you,

and peace to those who help you, for your God will help you.

These words expressed support for David from a group that came from Benjamin and Judah (1 Chron. 12:17). It seems reasonable to suggest that such a saying arose early in David’s rise as a slogan of support.19 Later antagonism to David on the throne led to such a saying being developed beyond a personal level in the classic formulation of Sheba in his attack on David. When it surfaces again at the division of the kingdom, it takes on dynastic dimensions with the addition of the line, “Look after your own house, O David!”

The death of Solomon shows again how divided Israel remained during the time of Solomon’s reign. Matters seriously deteriorated toward the end of Solomon’s reign, as one of his highest officials over the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28) was exiled to Egypt (v. 40). It is not clear that Jeroboam’s “mutiny” is a revolt by the north against Solomon, but it enhances his candidacy for the throne of Israel.

What is significant in this account of highly complex political turmoil is the role of the prophets. It was a “man of God” named Shemaiah who averts a civil war by persuading the contestants to behave in accordance with Yahweh’s word (12:21–24). Rehoboam has 120,000 elite troops ready to whip the northern tribes back into submission, but he does not use them. Even as the words of the prophet Ahijah are being fulfilled in giving ten parts of the kingdom to Jeroboam (v. 15; cf. 11:31), the words of Shemaiah have the effect of averting a disastrous war.

Tactics of Jeroboam. Jeroboam does not prove more faithful than Solomon in following the demands of the covenant. Political motivations lead him to establish cult centers in the north (12:26–29) and a different time of the Passover (vv. 32–33). Not only does Jeroboam compromise the unity of worship with his innovations, he introduces syncretistic elements. The bull was the common symbol for the Canaanite fertility cult in the worship of Baal. The whole message of the temple was that the Creator could not be represented by any form, since he could not be limited to any element of creation. The counsel given to Jeroboam is no doubt shrewd in its accommodation of popular culture (12:28), but it is destructive of the exclusive worship of Yahweh; worship at Dan and Bethel become the sin that characterizes the northern kingdom.

The two cult shrines are particularly offensive. The offense is not just that it is contrary to worshiping at the one place (Deut. 12:4–7), since Shiloh and Gibeon were legitimate places of worship. The problem is syncretism with Canaanite religion; they are like the high places of the nations, which the Israelites were to destroy (12:2–3). The figure of the bull serves as a footstool for the king, much as the ark did in the temple. Canaanite iconography depicts Baal as standing on the back of a bull with the lightning rod and the thunder club in his hands.

The use of such a symbol has a certain logic. Jeroboam cannot imitate the temple in Jerusalem; if the symbols are not those of the covenant, they must have some other connection to the world of the people. The calf is readily understood as a representation of fertility and prosperity, aspects of Yahweh that the people desire to affirm. They also readily understand the calf as a symbol of an invisible god, as the Canaanites do. Though Jeroboam intends the calves to be a symbol of Yahweh who brought them up from Egypt (v. 28; cf. Ex. 32:1, 4), they can never be dissociated from the Phoenician god Hadad. They further limit the representation of Yahweh to specific elements of creation and providence and as such are a complete distortion of the Lord of the covenant. The shrines are a continual offense and lead to Phoenician practices so that in the days of Elijah there is virtually no one who has not bowed the knee to Baal.

Solomon fully established centralization of worship with the building of the temple; the pilgrimage festivals then had to be observed at the same time. In breaking with this innovation Jeroboam is able to establish himself as maintaining the traditions of God, who brought them up from Egypt (12:28).20 Not only does Jeroboam counter the claim of Rehoboam at Shechem, he counters the innovation of a centralized festival during the seventh month, before the harvest in the north is complete.

The calendar was a complex and often contentious issue in Israel. It was complex because it had to be based on annual solar cycles relating to harvest, but the year was based on lunar cycles, which do not coincide with the solar cycle. It was necessary to add a month approximately every three years in lunar calendar reckoning.21 It is possible that Jeroboam adds a month in a year when Judah does not, a convenient means of discouraging citizens of Israel to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.22 The decision to observe the feast in a different month would not be a radical change.

Though God has called Jeroboam to be king over ten tribes of Israel (11:31, 35), the success of his reign depends on obedience (vv. 37–38), the same conditions that pertained for David. Jeroboam’s reforms are well designed to establish an independent kingdom, but they do not foster worship of Yahweh. Prophetic judgment against Jeroboam comes at the great festival as the king ascends the altar at Bethel to make his dedication offering (12:33). Bethel had long been a sacred place of worship. Jacob built an altar there (Gen. 35:1, 6–7), Deborah presided near Bethel (Judg. 4:5), and the ark of the covenant was brought there (Judg. 20:27). Jeroboam follows sacred tradition in building an altar there, but his worship is not acceptable.

Jeroboam does not understand the lordship of Yahweh, which cannot be compromised by foreign symbols. The situation is exactly as Joshua said it would be when the covenant was first made at Shechem (Josh. 24:19–22). Though the people vowed to serve Yahweh, they did not understand the nature of such a commitment. Yahweh was not like other gods; he did not share his dominion.

The two prophets. A man of God from Judah brings the word of Yahweh in condemning Jeroboam’s place of worship. The mission of this prophet demonstrates both the inspiration of his message and the importance of unconditional obedience. The mission of this prophet is to deliver his message and return to Judah without accepting any hospitality (13:8–9). An old prophet from Bethel tests the man of God on this point, urging him to return and accept his offer of hospitality. Judgment comes on the prophet; a lion kills him, and in very unlion-like fashion stands guard over his body with the donkey standing by. The death of the man from Judah for his disobedience is proof for the prophet at Bethel that the man from Judah has indeed proclaimed the word of Yahweh. If the man of God had arrived safely home, it would have proved he did not truly bear a word from God.

The story about the two prophets illustrates the problem of false prophecy in Israel. Even during the last days of Judah, a prophet named Hananiah took a stand against Jeremiah, promising that the yoke of Babylon would be broken and the valuables plundered from the temple would be restored (Jer. 28:1–4). Death was his fate for false prophecy (v. 17). The prophetic warning against Jeroboam has an ironic twist. In the words of Crenshaw, “Here one sees the true prophet become false to his commission, and the ‘false prophet’ takes up the genuine word of God and lets it fall with shattering force upon the erring man of God.”23

In the present case, the problem of a lying prophet serves the interests of prophecy itself. The word of the prophet from Judah is truly a word from Yahweh (13:32). The narrative shows that Jeroboam had ample warning from a genuine man of God, thus magnifying his guilt.24 The prophet from Judah demonstrates unwittingly the critical requirement of obedience. A man of God, prophet or king, must be so committed to transcendent truth that his entire life is controlled by it. The old prophet from Bethel shows him tremendous respect. The prophet fetches the body, buries it in his own tomb, laments over him as a brother, and requests that his own body be placed alongside that of the venerable prophet (vv. 27–31). The unmolested body is a sign that the word of judgment against the man of God from Judah is authentic. Disobedience to the divine word is a fearful matter. The prophet from Judah was false to himself and paid the ultimate price.

In every age there are those who claim to speak for God. These chapters provide the clearest test for recognizing words from God: obedience by the prophet. A prophetic message apart from obedience cannot be assured as coming from God. In this regard the man from Judah fails, but in so doing proves that he was a true prophet. The judgment of death applied to both prophet and king. Ahijah the prophet, the man who promised Jeroboam ten parts of the kingdom, delivers the message that his dynasty will come to an abrupt end because of his disobedience (14:7–11). His son Nadab is murdered in a conspiracy after a two-year reign. The only member of Jeroboam’s family to have a honorable burial was a young, innocent child who dies of illness.

The sin of Jeroboam ultimately leads to the death of the nation because he leads them in the way of disobedience. The situation in the southern kingdom is not much different. A dynasty of kings is preserved as a light for David in Jerusalem, as Ahijah has said (11:36). The temple holds hope of true worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but it does not assure that worship. Rehoboam leads the nation in a way that provokes the anger of Yahweh as none before him (14:22), a foreboding omen for the future of that nation as well.

The way of the Canaanites. The Former Prophets of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua-Kings) show a pattern of apostasy from the covenant. The book of Joshua is a compilation of materials that show how God fulfilled his promise of giving Israel the land of Canaan as an inheritance. Judges shows how the Israelites themselves became indistinguishable from the Canaanites. Joshua shows how Canaan became Israelite, and Judges how Israel became Canaanite.

The complete apostasy of Israel is illustrated in Judges 19. A Levite on his return home refuses to lodge in the foreign city of Jebus (pre-Davidic Jerusalem), but goes on to the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19:11–14). The Levite and his company are ignored until finally an old man returning from work provides hospitality (vv. 15–21). That night the Benjamites demanded sexual relations with the Levite. When this is refused, they abuse the concubine of the Levite until she dies (vv. 22–28). These verses have precise verbal parallel to the account of Lot receiving the two messengers in Sodom (Gen. 19:4–11). This technique is called echo narrative; it is a means of using a previous account to interpret a new event.25 Sodom is the quintessence of Canaanitism in the Scriptures (e.g., Isa. 1:7–10). The end of the story of Judges shows that apostasy has made the Israelites indistinguishable from the Canaanites.

The apostasy of Jeroboam in Kings shows that Israel and Judah once again as indistinguishable from Canaanites. The Davidic promise in 1-2 Samuel explains how after the period of the Judges God has again provided rest for the Israelites in their land (2 Sam. 7:1; cf. Josh. 21:43–45). In spite of all the struggles in David’s house, God has provided for his chosen son to receive the throne. But at the end of his reign the nation divides and is in constant internal conflict. Though the majestic temple gives testimony to the incomparable God of the covenant, both Israel and Judah adopt the ways of the Canaanites.

Prophetic worldview. The history of Kings makes the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat the influence that sets the pattern for all the kings that follow after him and sets the kingdom on a fateful course of annihilation. This persistent reminder is given in the negative evaluation of virtually every Israelite king. The fall of Israel is summarized in the following words:

When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there. (2 Kings 17:21–23)

Jeroboam has been described as an Unheilsherrscher.26 The closest English equivalents are “calamitous ruler” or “ill-fated ruler,” but the German term connotes the elements of the king’s own instrumentality in bringing about misfortune through real or alleged misdeeds. This portrayal of Jeroboam as being responsible for the fall of Israel is peculiar to the history of Kings. The Chronicler does not take account of the fall of Israel, since his focus is on the history of Judah, but he does offer a lengthy censure of Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13:4–12). Though Jeroboam is soundly condemned for his idolatry, there is no suggestion that he is responsible for the ultimate disappearance of Israel. Isaiah gives a vivid description of the moral decay that led to the ruin of the northern kingdom, but he does not make Jeroboam the primary culprit in the matter (Isa. 9:7–21). Kings alone assigns blame and culpability for the fall of Israel to Jeroboam.

This kind of historical perspective is known in other history writing of the ancient Near East. Perhaps the closest parallel is a ruler named Naram-Sin of the third millennium (ca. 2230–2100 B.C.). Naram-Sin followed Sargon I as ruler of the empire of Akkad. His rule has been described as “the most brilliant period that the Sargonic empire—and perhaps any Mesopotamian empire—was to know.”27 In a poetic writing called the Curse of Agade, Naram-Sin is said to have incurred the curse of the gods by sacrilege. The Gutians from the distant mountains invaded the land like a swarm of grasshoppers. The gods pronounced a lengthy curse against Akkad, dooming it to utter destruction. Naram-Sin, in spite of all his political achievements, became the paradigm of an Unheilsherrscher as an example to other dynasties.

In spite of his divine calling and privileged position as a successor to Solomon, Jeroboam is remembered as the king who brought destruction to himself and to his land. Though Israel has a long history with many wicked kings, the prophetic historians view the fall of Israel as the responsibility of Jeroboam. This king violated three fundamental theological propositions of the kingdom of God: The promise of God belonged to the Davidic dynasty (cf. 12:26–27); only the temple could represent the divine presence (12:28–29); the worship of God was to take place in Jerusalem (12:30–33). Ahijah condemns Jeroboam on each of these three counts.28 Jeroboam’s dynasty ends because he established other symbols of worship so the people would not go to Jerusalem (14:9–11). The prophetic interpretation of Israel’s history is that Jeroboam has fundamentally undermined loyalty to God and is thus responsible for the nation’s destruction.

It is often said that those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. The problem is that the lessons of history are not so transparent. History is a complexity of factors; many different causes are involved in the events that transpire. The lessons of historians are themselves shaped by the worldview of the history writer. According to the Mesopotamian legends, Naram-Sin caused the fall and destruction of Akkad. In their worldview the gods were responsible for the prosperity of their cities, so the fall of a city was logically explained by sacrilege against the gods. In this respect the prophets of Israel follow the same method; they believe that Yahweh has given the land to Israel; he is offended and brings judgment on the land.

Modern historians are different in their worldview; they interpret historical events according to their own economic, social, or anthropological theories, often without making their controlling assumptions explicit. Insofar as worldview is an expression of faith, modern histories are nevertheless controlled by religion, just as were those of the ancients.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

DO NOT BE CONFORMED to this world. The division of the kingdom is a sobering reminder of the danger of conforming to surrounding culture, all the while believing that confessions of faith are being followed and supported. The condemnations from Ahijah and the prophet of Judah make the sin of Israel seem self-evident. The story of the prophet from Bethel who lies in contradiction to the prophet from Judah is a reminder that Jeroboam had his supporting cast of prophets and priests who regarded their version of worship to be an acceptable expression of their faith in God.

Jeroboam goes back to earlier traditions in some of his innovations: a northern capital, northern sites of worship, and a northern time of the fall festival. In spite of the sign of a broken altar and a withered arm, Jeroboam refuses to change his ways. The nation of Israel follows him, even though they see the cost of disobedience in the death of the prophet from Judah. The conflict Judah has with the north is not because of idolatry, for Rehoboam leads Judah down the same path of syncretism. Political agendas and cultural pressures have an enormous power to distort adherence to faith in God and obedience to a divinely ordered way of life.

Jesus, in his high priestly prayer for his disciples, did not ask that God take them out of the world, but that God would keep them from the evil one; they were not of this world, just as Jesus himself was not of this world (John 17:15–16). Christians have struggled with this concept and debated it in many ways. Christians understand that they live by the values and conduct of the kingdom of God, but it is not easy to know how these are to be exercised in particular circumstances. To some extent believers must conform to the culture around them as part of the world they live in, but in certain ways their lives need to manifest a different value system.

It is easy for Christians to become consumed with the pursuit of wealth and a better standard of living. Such a standard is a good goal, but not if it becomes the purpose for work and use of one’s time. Christians understand that good relationships within family and community must be a high priority, but it is difficult to maintain good relations in the stress of daily life and encounters with difficult individuals. Some would even say “Christian businessman” is an oxymoron, since the interaction of business often requires dealings that are contrary to values of the Christian community. It is easiest to maintain a form of faith by certain practices like prayer and worship, even though much else of importance has been critically compromised.

Even maintaining an expression of Christian faith has become a challenge. Many churches are facing an acute shortage of pastors. One denomination reports that it will need one hundred new pastors each year for the next ten years to replace those who are now between fifty-five and sixty-five years old. At the same time their seminary has half as many students as it did twenty years ago. The growth in pastoral needs is an indication that the influence of the church and the work of pastoral teaching are implicitly held to be of inferior value.

There are various reasons for pastoral work not being a career of choice for gifted young Christians. A modern society occupied with individual rights and activist concerns for political agendas has increasingly marginalized the church. There was a time when the opinion of a minister was respected in ethical discussion, but more often now values based on faith are regarded as illegitimate in public life. There is a type of state religion established by government and courts on moral and ethical issues. Instead of recognizing this as a counter religious force, some Christians seem to be prepared to conform to these cultural norms. There is little encouragement for gifted young people to take up the challenge of thoughtfully articulating their faith in a society of a contrary religion. Christian leaders are pursuing careers where their opinion can be respected. This is important, but if it happens at the expense of thoughtful leadership in Christian congregations, there will be an increasing conformity to the culture and standards of a self-centered, self-absorbed, secular society.

The existentialism of the mid-twentieth century led to a postmodern culture with its own view of life and the world. Truth has become an individual matter, and spirituality is related to one’s emotional health. Evidence is growing that this culture has begun to compromise Christian faith, much as the calves and calendar of Jeroboam and the sacred stones and Asherah poles of Rehoboam led to the dissolution of faith in Israel and Judah. Many are aware of this compromise of faith, but too many deny it. Without thoughtful and informed leadership, the church is in danger of becoming more religiously obscurantist and irrelevant.

As in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, there is an expression of faith that has compromised biblical life and values so it is indistinguishable from the surrounding culture. Jesus did not ask that his followers be taken from the world, but that they would be sanctified in the truth of God’s Word and sent into the world (John 17:17–18). Purity from this world must begin with clear Christian thinking. Failure to clearly distinguish Christian faith from postmodern relativism will lead Christians to conform to the ways of the world.

Interpreting the signs. The story of the division of the kingdom should cause Christians to give careful thought to present history and life in this world. Believers are often prepared to explain the unfolding of political events in terms of divine judgment. It was the prerogative of inspired prophets to offer such analysis, especially when passing judgment on false worship as flagrant as that of Jeroboam. Jeroboam knew well the power of Ahijah to pass judgment on his reign, since his coming to power had been through Ahijah’s word from the beginning.

Jesus discouraged his disciples from looking for signs of final judgment in the events of their times. He said they would hear of wars and insurrections, but they were not to fear; this was a sign that the end was not yet (Luke 21:9). All these things are part of the times of this age, but those who belong to the kingdom of God need not fear. The falling of kingdoms is not in itself an indication that the end is immanent. The story of Jeroboam and Rehoboam beckons Christians to be vigilant about doing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven so that they will be distinguished from the ways of the world, but they should not be occupied with explaining how God is working in the events of the present time that his kingdom may come.

The prophets of Israel were able to proclaim boldly the work of God in their own history, declaring that the fall of the kingdom was the immediate result of disobedience. Prophetic activity was not without conflict in its own context, and it was possible for a true prophet to be deceived and to fail. It is necessary to have an understanding of the work of God in history, but it is not self-evident how God is at work in political events. Web sites such as raptureready.com track events that are a sign of the end: earthquakes, floods, plagues, crime, false prophets, and economic measurements like unemployment that add to instability and civil unrest. These are taken as signs of the arrival of Antichrist or the judgment that will bring the end of the world.

There is a danger in looking for the end of the world by an average of end-time activity. The warning of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians was that the end would come when they were thinking everything was safe (1 Thess. 5:1–3). Though warfare, earthquakes, famine, pestilences, and fearful events will precede the time of the end, Jesus warns that the end will come when his followers are not ready (Luke 21:34–36). They will be weighed down with the pleasures and anxieties of life, and the final day will arrive as a trap. Efforts to read prophecy in terms of calamitous events may actually be a distraction from the critical issues of being ready for the kingdom. It is important to watch the signs of the times, but these in themselves can never tell us precisely what God is doing in his great work of bringing his kingdom to this world.

Catastrophic events have always led to a rising interest in the end of the world. When Rome was sacked in A.D. 410 masses of people were convinced the end was near; similar thoughts surfaced when the Black Death wiped out one-third of the population of fourteenth-century Europe or when the Lisbon earthquake in 1755 created shudders all across Europe. As reported by Nancy Gibbs, events of the twentieth century have led believers to fit more recent events like the attacks on the World Trade Center into a scriptural grid of end-time events.

The rise of Hitler, a wicked man who wanted to murder the Jews, read like a Bible story; his utter destruction, and the subsequent return of the Jews to Israel after 2,000 years and the capture of Jerusalem’s Old City by the Israelis in 1967, were taken by devout Christians and Jews alike as evidence of God’s handiwork.29

The Old Testament prophets consistently confessed that God was at work in the political events of this world. Isaiah declared that Assyria was the rod of God’s anger against Israel (Isa. 10:5), but Assyria would itself be destroyed under God’s judgment. The axe should not pride itself over the one who swings it, nor should the staff try to lift the one that is not wood (10:15). Believers may be confident that God is at work in present events to bring about the consummation of redemption and the judgment of the Babylon of the last days (Rev. 18:2). But this does not grant a license to explain present catastrophes as judgments of God against particular nations in a scheme of how the world must end, nor can anyone know how soon the final judgment will come. The New Testament warns believers against attempts to judge the events of their times, since God has chosen not to reveal the times and the seasons that he has put under his own authority (Acts 1:7). Instead, they are called upon to be witnesses to the kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.

Just as there is danger in trying to interpret present events for the future, there is also danger in laying blame for the events of the past. When Abijah the son of Jeroboam became ill, the king sent a disguised messenger to the prophet who had commissioned him. The death of the child was not merely a judgment against Jeroboam but against his whole dynasty (14:10–11). This judgment was a judgment against the entire nation, which would go into exile (vv. 15–16). It was never the role of Jesus’ followers to ordain kings into power or to proclaim judgment against particular rulers. The gospel of the kingdom operates on a different order, where the last will be first and the great ones will be servants (Luke 22:24–30). The kingdom of Jesus transcended all earthly kingdoms.

Trivializing sacred symbols. A significant challenge for Christians, living in a hostile society, is the adoption of sacred symbols and times for purposes that make them trivial. A cartoon of a businessman bunny being crucified on a tax form in the New Yorker roused the passions of Wendy Zoba:

Every year during the holiest week on the Christian calendar, believers’ remembrances of the passion and resurrection of Christ must compete with egg-dropping expeditions of ubiquitous bunnies. But, as in the case of the fat guy in the red suit, we put up with a degree of secular mythology. It goes with our society’s pluralistic territory.

So maybe Christians should not be surprised when secular images are melded with the sacred and plastered on the cover of a respected magazine. Who can know what muse moved Art Spiegelman to sketch “Theology of the Tax Cut,” a businessman-bunny crucified on a tax form? Or what the editors of the New Yorker had in mind when they ran it on their cover during Holy Week?

But it is one more affirmation that the impact of the cross has lost its meaning for many in our society. Madonna’s frivolous use of the cross to define her quasi-religious persona has spurred its marketability within mainstream culture. But its significance has also been lost more generally, as evidenced by the jewelry store clerk who asked a customer if she wanted the plain cross necklace or the one with the “little man” on it.

Spiegelman’s work has sarcastically exploited the image in an attempt to engage in a political discussion (tax reform) that has little to do with the essence of the crucifixion.30

Zoba’s concerns have their analogy with the golden calves of Jeroboam. The calf cannot be an ark, just as the Passion story is not about taxation. The adoption and adaptation of sacred symbols invariably brings a mixed or compromised message. The cross is the most sacred symbol for the Christian, representing the incomparable act of God in reconciling humankind to himself. Zoba is not asking society to adopt Christian doctrine but to respect their expression of it, just as people do with other culturally significant symbols. She cannot imagine Spiegelman depicting Santa Claus expiring in a gas chamber during Yom Kippur; such an offense is unthinkable, as it should be.

As is the case with Jeroboam and Rehoboam, social and political forces often control the use of symbols with a force that cannot be challenged. It becomes all the more imperative for believers to keep clear for themselves the sacred distinctions represented in their symbols and to use them appropriately as expressions of faith.

Christianity has a history of giving spiritual significance to pagan festivals and emblems. The time of the Christmas celebration, just after solstice, green trees, Yule logs, and lights are all accretions around the birth of Christ adopted from pagan festivities; the church has used them successfully in making its own confessions. In modern times the reverse is taking place. In the name of tolerance and freedom, a crèche may not be displayed in a public place, and there has even been talk that the term Christmas itself is offensive to other religions and should not be used in signs and advertising. Christmas has been extensively taken over for commercial purposes, so Christians must self-consciously retain the sacred significance the day has for them. Times and symbols of Christian confession are as challenging as when Jeroboam set up his calves and Rehoboam his sacred stones and Asherah poles.

Dividing over religious calendars. One final important lesson from the reforms of Jeroboam is the power for division around the dates of festal celebrations. Some of the greatest controversies in the Christian church have been over the celebration of Easter. From the earliest times there has been division. It is clear from the Gospels that the death of Jesus was associated with Passover, but the time is not clear. According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was a Passover meal, with the death of Jesus the next day, but according to John the death of Jesus occurred at the time of the Passover. By the second century some churches celebrated Easter at the time of the Passover, whatever day of the week it occurred, and some celebrated it on Sunday. With four different methods used to calculate the date of Easter by the beginning of the fourth century, the Council of Nicea (325) decided Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox.

In modern times division over the celebration of Easter occurs because of the use of Gregorian and Julian calendars. The Gregorian calendar shortened the length of a calendar year to bring it more into conformity with the actual solar year. The date was then adjusted to bring the calendar months closer to the seasons, so that currently thirteen days separates the two calendars.

The division of calendar is most painful in regions where Christians of Eastern and Western churches live in close proximity. Various attempts have been made to bring Christians into harmony on the celebration of Easter.31 Three solutions are possible to harmonize celebration of Easter: a fixed date like Christmas; a common mobile date related to the spring equinox; a fixed Sunday with a mobility of about seven days. The questions are difficult; should Easter be related to the season of spring (which does not pertain in the southern hemisphere), or to the date of the Jewish Passover? The one goal that should not be lost is giving a unified and common witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the celebration of Easter. Calendar is powerful in dividing communities; it has an equal power to unite faith confessions, if a way can be found to provide harmonization.

Original Meaning

Jeroboam Made King over Israel (12:1–24)

DYNASTIC SUCCESSION DID not have an established procedure in the early days of the kingdom. Solomon had to overcome the forces of Adonijah in succeeding David to the throne. In the same way Rehoboam, son of Solomon, has to travel to Shechem to develop a consensus on his claim to the throne. Shechem was the original center of tribal commitment to the rule of Yahweh, their covenant god. Deuteronomy was structured around the requirement of a tribal commitment at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, where Shechem was located (Deut. 11:29–32; 27:1–14). The fulfillment of this requirement was made a central point in the arrangement of the book of Joshua. Immediately after entering the land the assembly at Shechem fulfills the requirement of Deuteronomy (Josh. 8:30–35). Joshua concludes with a lengthy description of this assembly (24:1–27); an enduring monument was placed there as a memorial to the covenant that not only maintained the unity of the tribes but their faithfulness to serving Yahweh. If Rehoboam is to secure the loyalty of the northern tribes, he must do so at Shechem.

When Rehoboam arrives in Shechem, the representatives of the northern tribes, referred to as “the whole assembly of Israel,” begin negotiations to gain concessions from the heavy load of taxation and conscripted service. The king is not at liberty to make an independent decision on this vital matter. He sets a time of three days to take counsel with the “elders” and the “young men,” two groups who have a critical role in the political process.

Elders traditionally exercised considerable influence in royal decisions. When Ben Hadad, king of Aram of Damascus, attacked Samaria, the elders were decisive in rejecting his harsh terms of surrender (1 Kings 20:7–9). When Absalom revolted against David, the elders of Israel were an influential force in critical decisions (2 Sam. 17:4, 15; 19:11). These elders were distinguished from officials, nobles, and guardians (Judg. 8:14; 1 Kings 21:8; 2 Kings 10:5) who had official roles in governance.

The “young men” are described as those who have grown up with Rehoboam (12:8). This designation has a parallel to an Egyptian term referring to the children of officials and palace personnel. Evidence of Israelite court officials indicates that such “young men” are descendants of officials and courtiers of both royal and nonroyal descent who serve in various capacities.2 Since Rehoboam is forty-one years old when he becomes king (14:21), they are not particularly youth. They belong to another generation and have different values from the more experienced elders. The elders held some type of official standing during the days of Solomon (12:6), and it is likely that the “young men” also had a high standing in the court. It is not apparent that these two groups are official bodies that convene to render decisions on vital matters,3 but the king needs the support of one of these groups before he can proceed with a decision.

As might be expected, the opinions of the two groups of advisors are diametrically opposed. The elders, well tempered by years of political experience, urge moderation; they remind the king that he is the servant of the people (12:7), and only by acting in that capacity can he expect the people to be willing to serve him. The younger princes, having enjoyed a sense of power and status all of their lives, urge the new king to proceed in an autocratic manner, using political force to increase control over the populace. Their rhetoric is designed to inspire fear: “My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist” (v. 10); “my father chastised you with whips, I will use scorpions” (v. 11). The sting of the “scorpion” is apparently a weighted or spiked lash that can be wielded by a taskmaster. The younger counselors see no need for conciliation. They cannot conceive of a leader as a servant to the people.

Rehoboam chooses not to follow the counsel of the elders. Though this is a foolish political choice, it is not just politics that influences his choice. The values of the covenant and the role of the king as a brother have already been lost by Solomon. The judgment of the prophets has already been declared; this turn of events is from Yahweh’s fulfilling the declarations of the prophet Ahijah (v. 15). Yet it is wrong to interpret this statement as divine control over Rehoboam’s mind. Rehoboam has no inner desire to follow Yahweh or the way of the covenant. He makes choices in accordance with his own values, which he has learned through his father.

Rehoboam proceeds to follow the path of political coercion and sends Adoram, the commissioner over those conscripted into royal service, to deal with the unrest. Adoram may be an abbreviation of Adoniram, the commissioner who regulated the conscripted workers during the time of Solomon (4:6). Whether or not he is known from an earlier regime, the people are in no mood to listen to new policies for regular terms of state service. They kill him, and Rehoboam flees to Jerusalem.

Rehoboam has not lost all capacity to respect the prophetic word. In accordance with the advice of the “young men,” Rehoboam prepares a considerable army to enforce his will over the rebellious tribes (12:21). A godly man named Shemaiah reminds him that though these tribes have rejected his rule, they are still brothers of the covenant. Their rejection of his rule is not a judgment against them, but the evidence of a divine judgment against Rehoboam himself. Rehoboam respects this judgment sufficiently to refrain from further political conflict and self-destruction.

The death of Solomon and the revolt of the northern tribes provides the occasion for Jeroboam to return from his exile in Egypt and assume leadership over the new political entity of Israel (12:20). His role in the revolt has been a matter of considerable discussion. It seems that Jeroboam is not summoned to the assembly until after the murder of Adoram, when it becomes known he has returned from Egypt (v. 20). Earlier references to Jeroboam indicate he is present during the negotiations at Shechem (vv. 2–3, 12). Presumably, Jeroboam has had a role in inspiring the verdict that Israel has no inheritance in the dynasty of David (12:16).

Innovations in the Northern Kingdom (12:25–32)

Bridging Contexts

LONG-STANDING DIVISIONS. David’s kingdom suffered from internal conflict even while it was emerging as a powerful empire in Palestine. Absalom shook the foundations of the kingdom in gaining the sympathy of the most influential people by taking advantage of the tribal institutions of eldership that David had transcended in a unified state (2 Sam. 15:13). David was forced to take refuge in Mahanaim in Transjordan, which was generally interested in a strong central monarchy. However, the deep division between Israel and Judah surfaced on his return, with David reliant mainly on his kinsmen in Judah and unable to internally unite them in one monarchical administration (19:15, 40–43). The action resulted in the revolt of Sheba the son of Bichri (20:1–2). Joab was able to stamp out the revolt without destroying any Israelite cities, but the internal division between Israel and Judah remained.

The words of Sheba in his rejection of David (2 Sam. 20:1) came to be used against Rehoboam after the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12:16):

What share do we have in David,

what part in Jesse’s son?

To your tents, O Israel!

Look after your own house, O David!

Poetic sayings like this circulated widely in oral form and were long remembered because they expressed deeply held feelings during the time of the united monarchy. This saying appears to be the converse of an earlier saying used to rally support for David. The Chronicler provides such a saying at the center of a chapter designed to show growing support for David (1 Chron. 12:18):

We are yours, O David!

We are with you, O son of Jesse!

Success, success to you,

and peace to those who help you, for your God will help you.

These words expressed support for David from a group that came from Benjamin and Judah (1 Chron. 12:17). It seems reasonable to suggest that such a saying arose early in David’s rise as a slogan of support.19 Later antagonism to David on the throne led to such a saying being developed beyond a personal level in the classic formulation of Sheba in his attack on David. When it surfaces again at the division of the kingdom, it takes on dynastic dimensions with the addition of the line, “Look after your own house, O David!”

The death of Solomon shows again how divided Israel remained during the time of Solomon’s reign. Matters seriously deteriorated toward the end of Solomon’s reign, as one of his highest officials over the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28) was exiled to Egypt (v. 40). It is not clear that Jeroboam’s “mutiny” is a revolt by the north against Solomon, but it enhances his candidacy for the throne of Israel.

What is significant in this account of highly complex political turmoil is the role of the prophets. It was a “man of God” named Shemaiah who averts a civil war by persuading the contestants to behave in accordance with Yahweh’s word (12:21–24). Rehoboam has 120,000 elite troops ready to whip the northern tribes back into submission, but he does not use them. Even as the words of the prophet Ahijah are being fulfilled in giving ten parts of the kingdom to Jeroboam (v. 15; cf. 11:31), the words of Shemaiah have the effect of averting a disastrous war.

Tactics of Jeroboam. Jeroboam does not prove more faithful than Solomon in following the demands of the covenant. Political motivations lead him to establish cult centers in the north (12:26–29) and a different time of the Passover (vv. 32–33). Not only does Jeroboam compromise the unity of worship with his innovations, he introduces syncretistic elements. The bull was the common symbol for the Canaanite fertility cult in the worship of Baal. The whole message of the temple was that the Creator could not be represented by any form, since he could not be limited to any element of creation. The counsel given to Jeroboam is no doubt shrewd in its accommodation of popular culture (12:28), but it is destructive of the exclusive worship of Yahweh; worship at Dan and Bethel become the sin that characterizes the northern kingdom.

The two cult shrines are particularly offensive. The offense is not just that it is contrary to worshiping at the one place (Deut. 12:4–7), since Shiloh and Gibeon were legitimate places of worship. The problem is syncretism with Canaanite religion; they are like the high places of the nations, which the Israelites were to destroy (12:2–3). The figure of the bull serves as a footstool for the king, much as the ark did in the temple. Canaanite iconography depicts Baal as standing on the back of a bull with the lightning rod and the thunder club in his hands.

The use of such a symbol has a certain logic. Jeroboam cannot imitate the temple in Jerusalem; if the symbols are not those of the covenant, they must have some other connection to the world of the people. The calf is readily understood as a representation of fertility and prosperity, aspects of Yahweh that the people desire to affirm. They also readily understand the calf as a symbol of an invisible god, as the Canaanites do. Though Jeroboam intends the calves to be a symbol of Yahweh who brought them up from Egypt (v. 28; cf. Ex. 32:1, 4), they can never be dissociated from the Phoenician god Hadad. They further limit the representation of Yahweh to specific elements of creation and providence and as such are a complete distortion of the Lord of the covenant. The shrines are a continual offense and lead to Phoenician practices so that in the days of Elijah there is virtually no one who has not bowed the knee to Baal.

Solomon fully established centralization of worship with the building of the temple; the pilgrimage festivals then had to be observed at the same time. In breaking with this innovation Jeroboam is able to establish himself as maintaining the traditions of God, who brought them up from Egypt (12:28).20 Not only does Jeroboam counter the claim of Rehoboam at Shechem, he counters the innovation of a centralized festival during the seventh month, before the harvest in the north is complete.

The calendar was a complex and often contentious issue in Israel. It was complex because it had to be based on annual solar cycles relating to harvest, but the year was based on lunar cycles, which do not coincide with the solar cycle. It was necessary to add a month approximately every three years in lunar calendar reckoning.21 It is possible that Jeroboam adds a month in a year when Judah does not, a convenient means of discouraging citizens of Israel to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.22 The decision to observe the feast in a different month would not be a radical change.

Though God has called Jeroboam to be king over ten tribes of Israel (11:31, 35), the success of his reign depends on obedience (vv. 37–38), the same conditions that pertained for David. Jeroboam’s reforms are well designed to establish an independent kingdom, but they do not foster worship of Yahweh. Prophetic judgment against Jeroboam comes at the great festival as the king ascends the altar at Bethel to make his dedication offering (12:33). Bethel had long been a sacred place of worship. Jacob built an altar there (Gen. 35:1, 6–7), Deborah presided near Bethel (Judg. 4:5), and the ark of the covenant was brought there (Judg. 20:27). Jeroboam follows sacred tradition in building an altar there, but his worship is not acceptable.

Jeroboam does not understand the lordship of Yahweh, which cannot be compromised by foreign symbols. The situation is exactly as Joshua said it would be when the covenant was first made at Shechem (Josh. 24:19–22). Though the people vowed to serve Yahweh, they did not understand the nature of such a commitment. Yahweh was not like other gods; he did not share his dominion.

The two prophets. A man of God from Judah brings the word of Yahweh in condemning Jeroboam’s place of worship. The mission of this prophet demonstrates both the inspiration of his message and the importance of unconditional obedience. The mission of this prophet is to deliver his message and return to Judah without accepting any hospitality (13:8–9). An old prophet from Bethel tests the man of God on this point, urging him to return and accept his offer of hospitality. Judgment comes on the prophet; a lion kills him, and in very unlion-like fashion stands guard over his body with the donkey standing by. The death of the man from Judah for his disobedience is proof for the prophet at Bethel that the man from Judah has indeed proclaimed the word of Yahweh. If the man of God had arrived safely home, it would have proved he did not truly bear a word from God.

The story about the two prophets illustrates the problem of false prophecy in Israel. Even during the last days of Judah, a prophet named Hananiah took a stand against Jeremiah, promising that the yoke of Babylon would be broken and the valuables plundered from the temple would be restored (Jer. 28:1–4). Death was his fate for false prophecy (v. 17). The prophetic warning against Jeroboam has an ironic twist. In the words of Crenshaw, “Here one sees the true prophet become false to his commission, and the ‘false prophet’ takes up the genuine word of God and lets it fall with shattering force upon the erring man of God.”23

In the present case, the problem of a lying prophet serves the interests of prophecy itself. The word of the prophet from Judah is truly a word from Yahweh (13:32). The narrative shows that Jeroboam had ample warning from a genuine man of God, thus magnifying his guilt.24 The prophet from Judah demonstrates unwittingly the critical requirement of obedience. A man of God, prophet or king, must be so committed to transcendent truth that his entire life is controlled by it. The old prophet from Bethel shows him tremendous respect. The prophet fetches the body, buries it in his own tomb, laments over him as a brother, and requests that his own body be placed alongside that of the venerable prophet (vv. 27–31). The unmolested body is a sign that the word of judgment against the man of God from Judah is authentic. Disobedience to the divine word is a fearful matter. The prophet from Judah was false to himself and paid the ultimate price.

In every age there are those who claim to speak for God. These chapters provide the clearest test for recognizing words from God: obedience by the prophet. A prophetic message apart from obedience cannot be assured as coming from God. In this regard the man from Judah fails, but in so doing proves that he was a true prophet. The judgment of death applied to both prophet and king. Ahijah the prophet, the man who promised Jeroboam ten parts of the kingdom, delivers the message that his dynasty will come to an abrupt end because of his disobedience (14:7–11). His son Nadab is murdered in a conspiracy after a two-year reign. The only member of Jeroboam’s family to have a honorable burial was a young, innocent child who dies of illness.

The sin of Jeroboam ultimately leads to the death of the nation because he leads them in the way of disobedience. The situation in the southern kingdom is not much different. A dynasty of kings is preserved as a light for David in Jerusalem, as Ahijah has said (11:36). The temple holds hope of true worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but it does not assure that worship. Rehoboam leads the nation in a way that provokes the anger of Yahweh as none before him (14:22), a foreboding omen for the future of that nation as well.

The way of the Canaanites. The Former Prophets of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua-Kings) show a pattern of apostasy from the covenant. The book of Joshua is a compilation of materials that show how God fulfilled his promise of giving Israel the land of Canaan as an inheritance. Judges shows how the Israelites themselves became indistinguishable from the Canaanites. Joshua shows how Canaan became Israelite, and Judges how Israel became Canaanite.

The complete apostasy of Israel is illustrated in Judges 19. A Levite on his return home refuses to lodge in the foreign city of Jebus (pre-Davidic Jerusalem), but goes on to the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19:11–14). The Levite and his company are ignored until finally an old man returning from work provides hospitality (vv. 15–21). That night the Benjamites demanded sexual relations with the Levite. When this is refused, they abuse the concubine of the Levite until she dies (vv. 22–28). These verses have precise verbal parallel to the account of Lot receiving the two messengers in Sodom (Gen. 19:4–11). This technique is called echo narrative; it is a means of using a previous account to interpret a new event.25 Sodom is the quintessence of Canaanitism in the Scriptures (e.g., Isa. 1:7–10). The end of the story of Judges shows that apostasy has made the Israelites indistinguishable from the Canaanites.

The apostasy of Jeroboam in Kings shows that Israel and Judah once again as indistinguishable from Canaanites. The Davidic promise in 1-2 Samuel explains how after the period of the Judges God has again provided rest for the Israelites in their land (2 Sam. 7:1; cf. Josh. 21:43–45). In spite of all the struggles in David’s house, God has provided for his chosen son to receive the throne. But at the end of his reign the nation divides and is in constant internal conflict. Though the majestic temple gives testimony to the incomparable God of the covenant, both Israel and Judah adopt the ways of the Canaanites.

Prophetic worldview. The history of Kings makes the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat the influence that sets the pattern for all the kings that follow after him and sets the kingdom on a fateful course of annihilation. This persistent reminder is given in the negative evaluation of virtually every Israelite king. The fall of Israel is summarized in the following words:

When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there. (2 Kings 17:21–23)

Jeroboam has been described as an Unheilsherrscher.26 The closest English equivalents are “calamitous ruler” or “ill-fated ruler,” but the German term connotes the elements of the king’s own instrumentality in bringing about misfortune through real or alleged misdeeds. This portrayal of Jeroboam as being responsible for the fall of Israel is peculiar to the history of Kings. The Chronicler does not take account of the fall of Israel, since his focus is on the history of Judah, but he does offer a lengthy censure of Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13:4–12). Though Jeroboam is soundly condemned for his idolatry, there is no suggestion that he is responsible for the ultimate disappearance of Israel. Isaiah gives a vivid description of the moral decay that led to the ruin of the northern kingdom, but he does not make Jeroboam the primary culprit in the matter (Isa. 9:7–21). Kings alone assigns blame and culpability for the fall of Israel to Jeroboam.

This kind of historical perspective is known in other history writing of the ancient Near East. Perhaps the closest parallel is a ruler named Naram-Sin of the third millennium (ca. 2230–2100 B.C.). Naram-Sin followed Sargon I as ruler of the empire of Akkad. His rule has been described as “the most brilliant period that the Sargonic empire—and perhaps any Mesopotamian empire—was to know.”27 In a poetic writing called the Curse of Agade, Naram-Sin is said to have incurred the curse of the gods by sacrilege. The Gutians from the distant mountains invaded the land like a swarm of grasshoppers. The gods pronounced a lengthy curse against Akkad, dooming it to utter destruction. Naram-Sin, in spite of all his political achievements, became the paradigm of an Unheilsherrscher as an example to other dynasties.

In spite of his divine calling and privileged position as a successor to Solomon, Jeroboam is remembered as the king who brought destruction to himself and to his land. Though Israel has a long history with many wicked kings, the prophetic historians view the fall of Israel as the responsibility of Jeroboam. This king violated three fundamental theological propositions of the kingdom of God: The promise of God belonged to the Davidic dynasty (cf. 12:26–27); only the temple could represent the divine presence (12:28–29); the worship of God was to take place in Jerusalem (12:30–33). Ahijah condemns Jeroboam on each of these three counts.28 Jeroboam’s dynasty ends because he established other symbols of worship so the people would not go to Jerusalem (14:9–11). The prophetic interpretation of Israel’s history is that Jeroboam has fundamentally undermined loyalty to God and is thus responsible for the nation’s destruction.

It is often said that those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. The problem is that the lessons of history are not so transparent. History is a complexity of factors; many different causes are involved in the events that transpire. The lessons of historians are themselves shaped by the worldview of the history writer. According to the Mesopotamian legends, Naram-Sin caused the fall and destruction of Akkad. In their worldview the gods were responsible for the prosperity of their cities, so the fall of a city was logically explained by sacrilege against the gods. In this respect the prophets of Israel follow the same method; they believe that Yahweh has given the land to Israel; he is offended and brings judgment on the land.

Modern historians are different in their worldview; they interpret historical events according to their own economic, social, or anthropological theories, often without making their controlling assumptions explicit. Insofar as worldview is an expression of faith, modern histories are nevertheless controlled by religion, just as were those of the ancients.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

DO NOT BE CONFORMED to this world. The division of the kingdom is a sobering reminder of the danger of conforming to surrounding culture, all the while believing that confessions of faith are being followed and supported. The condemnations from Ahijah and the prophet of Judah make the sin of Israel seem self-evident. The story of the prophet from Bethel who lies in contradiction to the prophet from Judah is a reminder that Jeroboam had his supporting cast of prophets and priests who regarded their version of worship to be an acceptable expression of their faith in God.

Jeroboam goes back to earlier traditions in some of his innovations: a northern capital, northern sites of worship, and a northern time of the fall festival. In spite of the sign of a broken altar and a withered arm, Jeroboam refuses to change his ways. The nation of Israel follows him, even though they see the cost of disobedience in the death of the prophet from Judah. The conflict Judah has with the north is not because of idolatry, for Rehoboam leads Judah down the same path of syncretism. Political agendas and cultural pressures have an enormous power to distort adherence to faith in God and obedience to a divinely ordered way of life.

Jesus, in his high priestly prayer for his disciples, did not ask that God take them out of the world, but that God would keep them from the evil one; they were not of this world, just as Jesus himself was not of this world (John 17:15–16). Christians have struggled with this concept and debated it in many ways. Christians understand that they live by the values and conduct of the kingdom of God, but it is not easy to know how these are to be exercised in particular circumstances. To some extent believers must conform to the culture around them as part of the world they live in, but in certain ways their lives need to manifest a different value system.

It is easy for Christians to become consumed with the pursuit of wealth and a better standard of living. Such a standard is a good goal, but not if it becomes the purpose for work and use of one’s time. Christians understand that good relationships within family and community must be a high priority, but it is difficult to maintain good relations in the stress of daily life and encounters with difficult individuals. Some would even say “Christian businessman” is an oxymoron, since the interaction of business often requires dealings that are contrary to values of the Christian community. It is easiest to maintain a form of faith by certain practices like prayer and worship, even though much else of importance has been critically compromised.

Even maintaining an expression of Christian faith has become a challenge. Many churches are facing an acute shortage of pastors. One denomination reports that it will need one hundred new pastors each year for the next ten years to replace those who are now between fifty-five and sixty-five years old. At the same time their seminary has half as many students as it did twenty years ago. The growth in pastoral needs is an indication that the influence of the church and the work of pastoral teaching are implicitly held to be of inferior value.

There are various reasons for pastoral work not being a career of choice for gifted young Christians. A modern society occupied with individual rights and activist concerns for political agendas has increasingly marginalized the church. There was a time when the opinion of a minister was respected in ethical discussion, but more often now values based on faith are regarded as illegitimate in public life. There is a type of state religion established by government and courts on moral and ethical issues. Instead of recognizing this as a counter religious force, some Christians seem to be prepared to conform to these cultural norms. There is little encouragement for gifted young people to take up the challenge of thoughtfully articulating their faith in a society of a contrary religion. Christian leaders are pursuing careers where their opinion can be respected. This is important, but if it happens at the expense of thoughtful leadership in Christian congregations, there will be an increasing conformity to the culture and standards of a self-centered, self-absorbed, secular society.

The existentialism of the mid-twentieth century led to a postmodern culture with its own view of life and the world. Truth has become an individual matter, and spirituality is related to one’s emotional health. Evidence is growing that this culture has begun to compromise Christian faith, much as the calves and calendar of Jeroboam and the sacred stones and Asherah poles of Rehoboam led to the dissolution of faith in Israel and Judah. Many are aware of this compromise of faith, but too many deny it. Without thoughtful and informed leadership, the church is in danger of becoming more religiously obscurantist and irrelevant.

As in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, there is an expression of faith that has compromised biblical life and values so it is indistinguishable from the surrounding culture. Jesus did not ask that his followers be taken from the world, but that they would be sanctified in the truth of God’s Word and sent into the world (John 17:17–18). Purity from this world must begin with clear Christian thinking. Failure to clearly distinguish Christian faith from postmodern relativism will lead Christians to conform to the ways of the world.

Interpreting the signs. The story of the division of the kingdom should cause Christians to give careful thought to present history and life in this world. Believers are often prepared to explain the unfolding of political events in terms of divine judgment. It was the prerogative of inspired prophets to offer such analysis, especially when passing judgment on false worship as flagrant as that of Jeroboam. Jeroboam knew well the power of Ahijah to pass judgment on his reign, since his coming to power had been through Ahijah’s word from the beginning.

Jesus discouraged his disciples from looking for signs of final judgment in the events of their times. He said they would hear of wars and insurrections, but they were not to fear; this was a sign that the end was not yet (Luke 21:9). All these things are part of the times of this age, but those who belong to the kingdom of God need not fear. The falling of kingdoms is not in itself an indication that the end is immanent. The story of Jeroboam and Rehoboam beckons Christians to be vigilant about doing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven so that they will be distinguished from the ways of the world, but they should not be occupied with explaining how God is working in the events of the present time that his kingdom may come.

The prophets of Israel were able to proclaim boldly the work of God in their own history, declaring that the fall of the kingdom was the immediate result of disobedience. Prophetic activity was not without conflict in its own context, and it was possible for a true prophet to be deceived and to fail. It is necessary to have an understanding of the work of God in history, but it is not self-evident how God is at work in political events. Web sites such as raptureready.com track events that are a sign of the end: earthquakes, floods, plagues, crime, false prophets, and economic measurements like unemployment that add to instability and civil unrest. These are taken as signs of the arrival of Antichrist or the judgment that will bring the end of the world.

There is a danger in looking for the end of the world by an average of end-time activity. The warning of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians was that the end would come when they were thinking everything was safe (1 Thess. 5:1–3). Though warfare, earthquakes, famine, pestilences, and fearful events will precede the time of the end, Jesus warns that the end will come when his followers are not ready (Luke 21:34–36). They will be weighed down with the pleasures and anxieties of life, and the final day will arrive as a trap. Efforts to read prophecy in terms of calamitous events may actually be a distraction from the critical issues of being ready for the kingdom. It is important to watch the signs of the times, but these in themselves can never tell us precisely what God is doing in his great work of bringing his kingdom to this world.

Catastrophic events have always led to a rising interest in the end of the world. When Rome was sacked in A.D. 410 masses of people were convinced the end was near; similar thoughts surfaced when the Black Death wiped out one-third of the population of fourteenth-century Europe or when the Lisbon earthquake in 1755 created shudders all across Europe. As reported by Nancy Gibbs, events of the twentieth century have led believers to fit more recent events like the attacks on the World Trade Center into a scriptural grid of end-time events.

The rise of Hitler, a wicked man who wanted to murder the Jews, read like a Bible story; his utter destruction, and the subsequent return of the Jews to Israel after 2,000 years and the capture of Jerusalem’s Old City by the Israelis in 1967, were taken by devout Christians and Jews alike as evidence of God’s handiwork.29

The Old Testament prophets consistently confessed that God was at work in the political events of this world. Isaiah declared that Assyria was the rod of God’s anger against Israel (Isa. 10:5), but Assyria would itself be destroyed under God’s judgment. The axe should not pride itself over the one who swings it, nor should the staff try to lift the one that is not wood (10:15). Believers may be confident that God is at work in present events to bring about the consummation of redemption and the judgment of the Babylon of the last days (Rev. 18:2). But this does not grant a license to explain present catastrophes as judgments of God against particular nations in a scheme of how the world must end, nor can anyone know how soon the final judgment will come. The New Testament warns believers against attempts to judge the events of their times, since God has chosen not to reveal the times and the seasons that he has put under his own authority (Acts 1:7). Instead, they are called upon to be witnesses to the kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.

Just as there is danger in trying to interpret present events for the future, there is also danger in laying blame for the events of the past. When Abijah the son of Jeroboam became ill, the king sent a disguised messenger to the prophet who had commissioned him. The death of the child was not merely a judgment against Jeroboam but against his whole dynasty (14:10–11). This judgment was a judgment against the entire nation, which would go into exile (vv. 15–16). It was never the role of Jesus’ followers to ordain kings into power or to proclaim judgment against particular rulers. The gospel of the kingdom operates on a different order, where the last will be first and the great ones will be servants (Luke 22:24–30). The kingdom of Jesus transcended all earthly kingdoms.

Trivializing sacred symbols. A significant challenge for Christians, living in a hostile society, is the adoption of sacred symbols and times for purposes that make them trivial. A cartoon of a businessman bunny being crucified on a tax form in the New Yorker roused the passions of Wendy Zoba:

Every year during the holiest week on the Christian calendar, believers’ remembrances of the passion and resurrection of Christ must compete with egg-dropping expeditions of ubiquitous bunnies. But, as in the case of the fat guy in the red suit, we put up with a degree of secular mythology. It goes with our society’s pluralistic territory.

So maybe Christians should not be surprised when secular images are melded with the sacred and plastered on the cover of a respected magazine. Who can know what muse moved Art Spiegelman to sketch “Theology of the Tax Cut,” a businessman-bunny crucified on a tax form? Or what the editors of the New Yorker had in mind when they ran it on their cover during Holy Week?

But it is one more affirmation that the impact of the cross has lost its meaning for many in our society. Madonna’s frivolous use of the cross to define her quasi-religious persona has spurred its marketability within mainstream culture. But its significance has also been lost more generally, as evidenced by the jewelry store clerk who asked a customer if she wanted the plain cross necklace or the one with the “little man” on it.

Spiegelman’s work has sarcastically exploited the image in an attempt to engage in a political discussion (tax reform) that has little to do with the essence of the crucifixion.30

Zoba’s concerns have their analogy with the golden calves of Jeroboam. The calf cannot be an ark, just as the Passion story is not about taxation. The adoption and adaptation of sacred symbols invariably brings a mixed or compromised message. The cross is the most sacred symbol for the Christian, representing the incomparable act of God in reconciling humankind to himself. Zoba is not asking society to adopt Christian doctrine but to respect their expression of it, just as people do with other culturally significant symbols. She cannot imagine Spiegelman depicting Santa Claus expiring in a gas chamber during Yom Kippur; such an offense is unthinkable, as it should be.

As is the case with Jeroboam and Rehoboam, social and political forces often control the use of symbols with a force that cannot be challenged. It becomes all the more imperative for believers to keep clear for themselves the sacred distinctions represented in their symbols and to use them appropriately as expressions of faith.

Christianity has a history of giving spiritual significance to pagan festivals and emblems. The time of the Christmas celebration, just after solstice, green trees, Yule logs, and lights are all accretions around the birth of Christ adopted from pagan festivities; the church has used them successfully in making its own confessions. In modern times the reverse is taking place. In the name of tolerance and freedom, a crèche may not be displayed in a public place, and there has even been talk that the term Christmas itself is offensive to other religions and should not be used in signs and advertising. Christmas has been extensively taken over for commercial purposes, so Christians must self-consciously retain the sacred significance the day has for them. Times and symbols of Christian confession are as challenging as when Jeroboam set up his calves and Rehoboam his sacred stones and Asherah poles.

Dividing over religious calendars. One final important lesson from the reforms of Jeroboam is the power for division around the dates of festal celebrations. Some of the greatest controversies in the Christian church have been over the celebration of Easter. From the earliest times there has been division. It is clear from the Gospels that the death of Jesus was associated with Passover, but the time is not clear. According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was a Passover meal, with the death of Jesus the next day, but according to John the death of Jesus occurred at the time of the Passover. By the second century some churches celebrated Easter at the time of the Passover, whatever day of the week it occurred, and some celebrated it on Sunday. With four different methods used to calculate the date of Easter by the beginning of the fourth century, the Council of Nicea (325) decided Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox.

In modern times division over the celebration of Easter occurs because of the use of Gregorian and Julian calendars. The Gregorian calendar shortened the length of a calendar year to bring it more into conformity with the actual solar year. The date was then adjusted to bring the calendar months closer to the seasons, so that currently thirteen days separates the two calendars.

The division of calendar is most painful in regions where Christians of Eastern and Western churches live in close proximity. Various attempts have been made to bring Christians into harmony on the celebration of Easter.31 Three solutions are possible to harmonize celebration of Easter: a fixed date like Christmas; a common mobile date related to the spring equinox; a fixed Sunday with a mobility of about seven days. The questions are difficult; should Easter be related to the season of spring (which does not pertain in the southern hemisphere), or to the date of the Jewish Passover? The one goal that should not be lost is giving a unified and common witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the celebration of Easter. Calendar is powerful in dividing communities; it has an equal power to unite faith confessions, if a way can be found to provide harmonization.

Original Meaning

Innovations in the Northern Kingdom (12:25–32)

JEROBOAM CREATES A distinct kingdom in the north through various changes. He fortifies Shechem to make it a royal residence, then Penuel across the Jordan (12:25), and finally Tirzah (cf. 14:17). He establishes places of worship in Bethel and Dan so the people will not go to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals; he makes the Canaanite bull the symbol of divine presence and providence (12:27–31). Archaeological evidence indicates that in the days of Jeroboam the sanctuary at Dan extended over a relatively large area (approximately 150 feet or 45 meters by 200 feet or 60 meters). This area, with its various structures, storerooms, and open spaces paved with stone, may be the various “houses on the high places” (v. 31).4

Jeroboam alters the priesthood, ordaining those not from the tribe of Levi; he establishes the eighth month as the time of the great fall pilgrimage (12:32). These changes establish him as a legitimate king and serve to isolate those who are inclined to loyalty toward Jerusalem.

The name Shechem (“shoulder”) is probably derived from the location of the city on the slopes of Mount Ebal to the north or Gerizim to the south. This strategic valley of fertile soil provides access to the central hill country from the Jordan. The ascent follows the deeply faulted Wadi Faria from the river fords at Adam to Tirzah, and from there to Shechem. Shechem replaces Shiloh (to the south) as a religious and political center. From there inner montane roads lead to the west through the valley and to points north through the Dothan Valley and Jezreel.

Tirzah (“beauty”) is about seven miles (eleven kilometers) northeast of Shechem. It is destroyed shortly after Jeroboam, possibly during the siege of Omri when Zimri burns down his own palace (16:17–18). Penuel is east of the Jordan at a crossing of the Jabbok Valley. It was a sacred site as the place where Jacob wrestled with the angel (Gen. 32:22–32). Jeroboam’s fortification assists in the control of Gilead, an area that remained loyal to David in the revolt of Absalom.

The ordination of nonlevitical priests may have been part of the policy to forge a separation between the kingdoms of David and Jeroboam. The Levitical settlements were agents of David and Solomon in preserving Israelite faith and culture as Canaanite territories were added to the kingdom (1 Chron. 26:29–32).5 The settlements in southern Benjamin may have been designed to resist the influence of the family of Saul. Levitical priests would naturally have had a loyalty to the temple as well as David, and most may have been unwilling to serve at a separate shrine.

An annual pilgrimage festival was common in the religions of Syria and Mesopotamia. Rehoboam would have used the occasion of the fall festival to seek the confirmation of his rule in Shechem. If that were the case, it would have been necessary for Jeroboam to counter that festival in the next month to establish his own independent dominion. The fall Festival of Booths was connected to the completion of harvest; it was the Feast of Ingathering (Ex. 23:16). Harvest is dependent on weather; in Palestine the more tropical south generally has an earlier harvest than the more moderate north. The Gezer Calendar, from about the time of Jeroboam, was based on agricultural cycles and appears to have had flexibility for the time of the fruit harvest festival.6 David set up Jerusalem as a new capital between Shechem and Hebron; Solomon centralized worship and established an exclusive priesthood.

Prophetic Condemnation of Jeroboam (12:33–13:34)

Bridging Contexts

LONG-STANDING DIVISIONS. David’s kingdom suffered from internal conflict even while it was emerging as a powerful empire in Palestine. Absalom shook the foundations of the kingdom in gaining the sympathy of the most influential people by taking advantage of the tribal institutions of eldership that David had transcended in a unified state (2 Sam. 15:13). David was forced to take refuge in Mahanaim in Transjordan, which was generally interested in a strong central monarchy. However, the deep division between Israel and Judah surfaced on his return, with David reliant mainly on his kinsmen in Judah and unable to internally unite them in one monarchical administration (19:15, 40–43). The action resulted in the revolt of Sheba the son of Bichri (20:1–2). Joab was able to stamp out the revolt without destroying any Israelite cities, but the internal division between Israel and Judah remained.

The words of Sheba in his rejection of David (2 Sam. 20:1) came to be used against Rehoboam after the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12:16):

What share do we have in David,

what part in Jesse’s son?

To your tents, O Israel!

Look after your own house, O David!

Poetic sayings like this circulated widely in oral form and were long remembered because they expressed deeply held feelings during the time of the united monarchy. This saying appears to be the converse of an earlier saying used to rally support for David. The Chronicler provides such a saying at the center of a chapter designed to show growing support for David (1 Chron. 12:18):

We are yours, O David!

We are with you, O son of Jesse!

Success, success to you,

and peace to those who help you, for your God will help you.

These words expressed support for David from a group that came from Benjamin and Judah (1 Chron. 12:17). It seems reasonable to suggest that such a saying arose early in David’s rise as a slogan of support.19 Later antagonism to David on the throne led to such a saying being developed beyond a personal level in the classic formulation of Sheba in his attack on David. When it surfaces again at the division of the kingdom, it takes on dynastic dimensions with the addition of the line, “Look after your own house, O David!”

The death of Solomon shows again how divided Israel remained during the time of Solomon’s reign. Matters seriously deteriorated toward the end of Solomon’s reign, as one of his highest officials over the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28) was exiled to Egypt (v. 40). It is not clear that Jeroboam’s “mutiny” is a revolt by the north against Solomon, but it enhances his candidacy for the throne of Israel.

What is significant in this account of highly complex political turmoil is the role of the prophets. It was a “man of God” named Shemaiah who averts a civil war by persuading the contestants to behave in accordance with Yahweh’s word (12:21–24). Rehoboam has 120,000 elite troops ready to whip the northern tribes back into submission, but he does not use them. Even as the words of the prophet Ahijah are being fulfilled in giving ten parts of the kingdom to Jeroboam (v. 15; cf. 11:31), the words of Shemaiah have the effect of averting a disastrous war.

Tactics of Jeroboam. Jeroboam does not prove more faithful than Solomon in following the demands of the covenant. Political motivations lead him to establish cult centers in the north (12:26–29) and a different time of the Passover (vv. 32–33). Not only does Jeroboam compromise the unity of worship with his innovations, he introduces syncretistic elements. The bull was the common symbol for the Canaanite fertility cult in the worship of Baal. The whole message of the temple was that the Creator could not be represented by any form, since he could not be limited to any element of creation. The counsel given to Jeroboam is no doubt shrewd in its accommodation of popular culture (12:28), but it is destructive of the exclusive worship of Yahweh; worship at Dan and Bethel become the sin that characterizes the northern kingdom.

The two cult shrines are particularly offensive. The offense is not just that it is contrary to worshiping at the one place (Deut. 12:4–7), since Shiloh and Gibeon were legitimate places of worship. The problem is syncretism with Canaanite religion; they are like the high places of the nations, which the Israelites were to destroy (12:2–3). The figure of the bull serves as a footstool for the king, much as the ark did in the temple. Canaanite iconography depicts Baal as standing on the back of a bull with the lightning rod and the thunder club in his hands.

The use of such a symbol has a certain logic. Jeroboam cannot imitate the temple in Jerusalem; if the symbols are not those of the covenant, they must have some other connection to the world of the people. The calf is readily understood as a representation of fertility and prosperity, aspects of Yahweh that the people desire to affirm. They also readily understand the calf as a symbol of an invisible god, as the Canaanites do. Though Jeroboam intends the calves to be a symbol of Yahweh who brought them up from Egypt (v. 28; cf. Ex. 32:1, 4), they can never be dissociated from the Phoenician god Hadad. They further limit the representation of Yahweh to specific elements of creation and providence and as such are a complete distortion of the Lord of the covenant. The shrines are a continual offense and lead to Phoenician practices so that in the days of Elijah there is virtually no one who has not bowed the knee to Baal.

Solomon fully established centralization of worship with the building of the temple; the pilgrimage festivals then had to be observed at the same time. In breaking with this innovation Jeroboam is able to establish himself as maintaining the traditions of God, who brought them up from Egypt (12:28).20 Not only does Jeroboam counter the claim of Rehoboam at Shechem, he counters the innovation of a centralized festival during the seventh month, before the harvest in the north is complete.

The calendar was a complex and often contentious issue in Israel. It was complex because it had to be based on annual solar cycles relating to harvest, but the year was based on lunar cycles, which do not coincide with the solar cycle. It was necessary to add a month approximately every three years in lunar calendar reckoning.21 It is possible that Jeroboam adds a month in a year when Judah does not, a convenient means of discouraging citizens of Israel to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.22 The decision to observe the feast in a different month would not be a radical change.

Though God has called Jeroboam to be king over ten tribes of Israel (11:31, 35), the success of his reign depends on obedience (vv. 37–38), the same conditions that pertained for David. Jeroboam’s reforms are well designed to establish an independent kingdom, but they do not foster worship of Yahweh. Prophetic judgment against Jeroboam comes at the great festival as the king ascends the altar at Bethel to make his dedication offering (12:33). Bethel had long been a sacred place of worship. Jacob built an altar there (Gen. 35:1, 6–7), Deborah presided near Bethel (Judg. 4:5), and the ark of the covenant was brought there (Judg. 20:27). Jeroboam follows sacred tradition in building an altar there, but his worship is not acceptable.

Jeroboam does not understand the lordship of Yahweh, which cannot be compromised by foreign symbols. The situation is exactly as Joshua said it would be when the covenant was first made at Shechem (Josh. 24:19–22). Though the people vowed to serve Yahweh, they did not understand the nature of such a commitment. Yahweh was not like other gods; he did not share his dominion.

The two prophets. A man of God from Judah brings the word of Yahweh in condemning Jeroboam’s place of worship. The mission of this prophet demonstrates both the inspiration of his message and the importance of unconditional obedience. The mission of this prophet is to deliver his message and return to Judah without accepting any hospitality (13:8–9). An old prophet from Bethel tests the man of God on this point, urging him to return and accept his offer of hospitality. Judgment comes on the prophet; a lion kills him, and in very unlion-like fashion stands guard over his body with the donkey standing by. The death of the man from Judah for his disobedience is proof for the prophet at Bethel that the man from Judah has indeed proclaimed the word of Yahweh. If the man of God had arrived safely home, it would have proved he did not truly bear a word from God.

The story about the two prophets illustrates the problem of false prophecy in Israel. Even during the last days of Judah, a prophet named Hananiah took a stand against Jeremiah, promising that the yoke of Babylon would be broken and the valuables plundered from the temple would be restored (Jer. 28:1–4). Death was his fate for false prophecy (v. 17). The prophetic warning against Jeroboam has an ironic twist. In the words of Crenshaw, “Here one sees the true prophet become false to his commission, and the ‘false prophet’ takes up the genuine word of God and lets it fall with shattering force upon the erring man of God.”23

In the present case, the problem of a lying prophet serves the interests of prophecy itself. The word of the prophet from Judah is truly a word from Yahweh (13:32). The narrative shows that Jeroboam had ample warning from a genuine man of God, thus magnifying his guilt.24 The prophet from Judah demonstrates unwittingly the critical requirement of obedience. A man of God, prophet or king, must be so committed to transcendent truth that his entire life is controlled by it. The old prophet from Bethel shows him tremendous respect. The prophet fetches the body, buries it in his own tomb, laments over him as a brother, and requests that his own body be placed alongside that of the venerable prophet (vv. 27–31). The unmolested body is a sign that the word of judgment against the man of God from Judah is authentic. Disobedience to the divine word is a fearful matter. The prophet from Judah was false to himself and paid the ultimate price.

In every age there are those who claim to speak for God. These chapters provide the clearest test for recognizing words from God: obedience by the prophet. A prophetic message apart from obedience cannot be assured as coming from God. In this regard the man from Judah fails, but in so doing proves that he was a true prophet. The judgment of death applied to both prophet and king. Ahijah the prophet, the man who promised Jeroboam ten parts of the kingdom, delivers the message that his dynasty will come to an abrupt end because of his disobedience (14:7–11). His son Nadab is murdered in a conspiracy after a two-year reign. The only member of Jeroboam’s family to have a honorable burial was a young, innocent child who dies of illness.

The sin of Jeroboam ultimately leads to the death of the nation because he leads them in the way of disobedience. The situation in the southern kingdom is not much different. A dynasty of kings is preserved as a light for David in Jerusalem, as Ahijah has said (11:36). The temple holds hope of true worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but it does not assure that worship. Rehoboam leads the nation in a way that provokes the anger of Yahweh as none before him (14:22), a foreboding omen for the future of that nation as well.

The way of the Canaanites. The Former Prophets of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua-Kings) show a pattern of apostasy from the covenant. The book of Joshua is a compilation of materials that show how God fulfilled his promise of giving Israel the land of Canaan as an inheritance. Judges shows how the Israelites themselves became indistinguishable from the Canaanites. Joshua shows how Canaan became Israelite, and Judges how Israel became Canaanite.

The complete apostasy of Israel is illustrated in Judges 19. A Levite on his return home refuses to lodge in the foreign city of Jebus (pre-Davidic Jerusalem), but goes on to the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19:11–14). The Levite and his company are ignored until finally an old man returning from work provides hospitality (vv. 15–21). That night the Benjamites demanded sexual relations with the Levite. When this is refused, they abuse the concubine of the Levite until she dies (vv. 22–28). These verses have precise verbal parallel to the account of Lot receiving the two messengers in Sodom (Gen. 19:4–11). This technique is called echo narrative; it is a means of using a previous account to interpret a new event.25 Sodom is the quintessence of Canaanitism in the Scriptures (e.g., Isa. 1:7–10). The end of the story of Judges shows that apostasy has made the Israelites indistinguishable from the Canaanites.

The apostasy of Jeroboam in Kings shows that Israel and Judah once again as indistinguishable from Canaanites. The Davidic promise in 1-2 Samuel explains how after the period of the Judges God has again provided rest for the Israelites in their land (2 Sam. 7:1; cf. Josh. 21:43–45). In spite of all the struggles in David’s house, God has provided for his chosen son to receive the throne. But at the end of his reign the nation divides and is in constant internal conflict. Though the majestic temple gives testimony to the incomparable God of the covenant, both Israel and Judah adopt the ways of the Canaanites.

Prophetic worldview. The history of Kings makes the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat the influence that sets the pattern for all the kings that follow after him and sets the kingdom on a fateful course of annihilation. This persistent reminder is given in the negative evaluation of virtually every Israelite king. The fall of Israel is summarized in the following words:

When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there. (2 Kings 17:21–23)

Jeroboam has been described as an Unheilsherrscher.26 The closest English equivalents are “calamitous ruler” or “ill-fated ruler,” but the German term connotes the elements of the king’s own instrumentality in bringing about misfortune through real or alleged misdeeds. This portrayal of Jeroboam as being responsible for the fall of Israel is peculiar to the history of Kings. The Chronicler does not take account of the fall of Israel, since his focus is on the history of Judah, but he does offer a lengthy censure of Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13:4–12). Though Jeroboam is soundly condemned for his idolatry, there is no suggestion that he is responsible for the ultimate disappearance of Israel. Isaiah gives a vivid description of the moral decay that led to the ruin of the northern kingdom, but he does not make Jeroboam the primary culprit in the matter (Isa. 9:7–21). Kings alone assigns blame and culpability for the fall of Israel to Jeroboam.

This kind of historical perspective is known in other history writing of the ancient Near East. Perhaps the closest parallel is a ruler named Naram-Sin of the third millennium (ca. 2230–2100 B.C.). Naram-Sin followed Sargon I as ruler of the empire of Akkad. His rule has been described as “the most brilliant period that the Sargonic empire—and perhaps any Mesopotamian empire—was to know.”27 In a poetic writing called the Curse of Agade, Naram-Sin is said to have incurred the curse of the gods by sacrilege. The Gutians from the distant mountains invaded the land like a swarm of grasshoppers. The gods pronounced a lengthy curse against Akkad, dooming it to utter destruction. Naram-Sin, in spite of all his political achievements, became the paradigm of an Unheilsherrscher as an example to other dynasties.

In spite of his divine calling and privileged position as a successor to Solomon, Jeroboam is remembered as the king who brought destruction to himself and to his land. Though Israel has a long history with many wicked kings, the prophetic historians view the fall of Israel as the responsibility of Jeroboam. This king violated three fundamental theological propositions of the kingdom of God: The promise of God belonged to the Davidic dynasty (cf. 12:26–27); only the temple could represent the divine presence (12:28–29); the worship of God was to take place in Jerusalem (12:30–33). Ahijah condemns Jeroboam on each of these three counts.28 Jeroboam’s dynasty ends because he established other symbols of worship so the people would not go to Jerusalem (14:9–11). The prophetic interpretation of Israel’s history is that Jeroboam has fundamentally undermined loyalty to God and is thus responsible for the nation’s destruction.

It is often said that those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. The problem is that the lessons of history are not so transparent. History is a complexity of factors; many different causes are involved in the events that transpire. The lessons of historians are themselves shaped by the worldview of the history writer. According to the Mesopotamian legends, Naram-Sin caused the fall and destruction of Akkad. In their worldview the gods were responsible for the prosperity of their cities, so the fall of a city was logically explained by sacrilege against the gods. In this respect the prophets of Israel follow the same method; they believe that Yahweh has given the land to Israel; he is offended and brings judgment on the land.

Modern historians are different in their worldview; they interpret historical events according to their own economic, social, or anthropological theories, often without making their controlling assumptions explicit. Insofar as worldview is an expression of faith, modern histories are nevertheless controlled by religion, just as were those of the ancients.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

DO NOT BE CONFORMED to this world. The division of the kingdom is a sobering reminder of the danger of conforming to surrounding culture, all the while believing that confessions of faith are being followed and supported. The condemnations from Ahijah and the prophet of Judah make the sin of Israel seem self-evident. The story of the prophet from Bethel who lies in contradiction to the prophet from Judah is a reminder that Jeroboam had his supporting cast of prophets and priests who regarded their version of worship to be an acceptable expression of their faith in God.

Jeroboam goes back to earlier traditions in some of his innovations: a northern capital, northern sites of worship, and a northern time of the fall festival. In spite of the sign of a broken altar and a withered arm, Jeroboam refuses to change his ways. The nation of Israel follows him, even though they see the cost of disobedience in the death of the prophet from Judah. The conflict Judah has with the north is not because of idolatry, for Rehoboam leads Judah down the same path of syncretism. Political agendas and cultural pressures have an enormous power to distort adherence to faith in God and obedience to a divinely ordered way of life.

Jesus, in his high priestly prayer for his disciples, did not ask that God take them out of the world, but that God would keep them from the evil one; they were not of this world, just as Jesus himself was not of this world (John 17:15–16). Christians have struggled with this concept and debated it in many ways. Christians understand that they live by the values and conduct of the kingdom of God, but it is not easy to know how these are to be exercised in particular circumstances. To some extent believers must conform to the culture around them as part of the world they live in, but in certain ways their lives need to manifest a different value system.

It is easy for Christians to become consumed with the pursuit of wealth and a better standard of living. Such a standard is a good goal, but not if it becomes the purpose for work and use of one’s time. Christians understand that good relationships within family and community must be a high priority, but it is difficult to maintain good relations in the stress of daily life and encounters with difficult individuals. Some would even say “Christian businessman” is an oxymoron, since the interaction of business often requires dealings that are contrary to values of the Christian community. It is easiest to maintain a form of faith by certain practices like prayer and worship, even though much else of importance has been critically compromised.

Even maintaining an expression of Christian faith has become a challenge. Many churches are facing an acute shortage of pastors. One denomination reports that it will need one hundred new pastors each year for the next ten years to replace those who are now between fifty-five and sixty-five years old. At the same time their seminary has half as many students as it did twenty years ago. The growth in pastoral needs is an indication that the influence of the church and the work of pastoral teaching are implicitly held to be of inferior value.

There are various reasons for pastoral work not being a career of choice for gifted young Christians. A modern society occupied with individual rights and activist concerns for political agendas has increasingly marginalized the church. There was a time when the opinion of a minister was respected in ethical discussion, but more often now values based on faith are regarded as illegitimate in public life. There is a type of state religion established by government and courts on moral and ethical issues. Instead of recognizing this as a counter religious force, some Christians seem to be prepared to conform to these cultural norms. There is little encouragement for gifted young people to take up the challenge of thoughtfully articulating their faith in a society of a contrary religion. Christian leaders are pursuing careers where their opinion can be respected. This is important, but if it happens at the expense of thoughtful leadership in Christian congregations, there will be an increasing conformity to the culture and standards of a self-centered, self-absorbed, secular society.

The existentialism of the mid-twentieth century led to a postmodern culture with its own view of life and the world. Truth has become an individual matter, and spirituality is related to one’s emotional health. Evidence is growing that this culture has begun to compromise Christian faith, much as the calves and calendar of Jeroboam and the sacred stones and Asherah poles of Rehoboam led to the dissolution of faith in Israel and Judah. Many are aware of this compromise of faith, but too many deny it. Without thoughtful and informed leadership, the church is in danger of becoming more religiously obscurantist and irrelevant.

As in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, there is an expression of faith that has compromised biblical life and values so it is indistinguishable from the surrounding culture. Jesus did not ask that his followers be taken from the world, but that they would be sanctified in the truth of God’s Word and sent into the world (John 17:17–18). Purity from this world must begin with clear Christian thinking. Failure to clearly distinguish Christian faith from postmodern relativism will lead Christians to conform to the ways of the world.

Interpreting the signs. The story of the division of the kingdom should cause Christians to give careful thought to present history and life in this world. Believers are often prepared to explain the unfolding of political events in terms of divine judgment. It was the prerogative of inspired prophets to offer such analysis, especially when passing judgment on false worship as flagrant as that of Jeroboam. Jeroboam knew well the power of Ahijah to pass judgment on his reign, since his coming to power had been through Ahijah’s word from the beginning.

Jesus discouraged his disciples from looking for signs of final judgment in the events of their times. He said they would hear of wars and insurrections, but they were not to fear; this was a sign that the end was not yet (Luke 21:9). All these things are part of the times of this age, but those who belong to the kingdom of God need not fear. The falling of kingdoms is not in itself an indication that the end is immanent. The story of Jeroboam and Rehoboam beckons Christians to be vigilant about doing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven so that they will be distinguished from the ways of the world, but they should not be occupied with explaining how God is working in the events of the present time that his kingdom may come.

The prophets of Israel were able to proclaim boldly the work of God in their own history, declaring that the fall of the kingdom was the immediate result of disobedience. Prophetic activity was not without conflict in its own context, and it was possible for a true prophet to be deceived and to fail. It is necessary to have an understanding of the work of God in history, but it is not self-evident how God is at work in political events. Web sites such as raptureready.com track events that are a sign of the end: earthquakes, floods, plagues, crime, false prophets, and economic measurements like unemployment that add to instability and civil unrest. These are taken as signs of the arrival of Antichrist or the judgment that will bring the end of the world.

There is a danger in looking for the end of the world by an average of end-time activity. The warning of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians was that the end would come when they were thinking everything was safe (1 Thess. 5:1–3). Though warfare, earthquakes, famine, pestilences, and fearful events will precede the time of the end, Jesus warns that the end will come when his followers are not ready (Luke 21:34–36). They will be weighed down with the pleasures and anxieties of life, and the final day will arrive as a trap. Efforts to read prophecy in terms of calamitous events may actually be a distraction from the critical issues of being ready for the kingdom. It is important to watch the signs of the times, but these in themselves can never tell us precisely what God is doing in his great work of bringing his kingdom to this world.

Catastrophic events have always led to a rising interest in the end of the world. When Rome was sacked in A.D. 410 masses of people were convinced the end was near; similar thoughts surfaced when the Black Death wiped out one-third of the population of fourteenth-century Europe or when the Lisbon earthquake in 1755 created shudders all across Europe. As reported by Nancy Gibbs, events of the twentieth century have led believers to fit more recent events like the attacks on the World Trade Center into a scriptural grid of end-time events.

The rise of Hitler, a wicked man who wanted to murder the Jews, read like a Bible story; his utter destruction, and the subsequent return of the Jews to Israel after 2,000 years and the capture of Jerusalem’s Old City by the Israelis in 1967, were taken by devout Christians and Jews alike as evidence of God’s handiwork.29

The Old Testament prophets consistently confessed that God was at work in the political events of this world. Isaiah declared that Assyria was the rod of God’s anger against Israel (Isa. 10:5), but Assyria would itself be destroyed under God’s judgment. The axe should not pride itself over the one who swings it, nor should the staff try to lift the one that is not wood (10:15). Believers may be confident that God is at work in present events to bring about the consummation of redemption and the judgment of the Babylon of the last days (Rev. 18:2). But this does not grant a license to explain present catastrophes as judgments of God against particular nations in a scheme of how the world must end, nor can anyone know how soon the final judgment will come. The New Testament warns believers against attempts to judge the events of their times, since God has chosen not to reveal the times and the seasons that he has put under his own authority (Acts 1:7). Instead, they are called upon to be witnesses to the kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.

Just as there is danger in trying to interpret present events for the future, there is also danger in laying blame for the events of the past. When Abijah the son of Jeroboam became ill, the king sent a disguised messenger to the prophet who had commissioned him. The death of the child was not merely a judgment against Jeroboam but against his whole dynasty (14:10–11). This judgment was a judgment against the entire nation, which would go into exile (vv. 15–16). It was never the role of Jesus’ followers to ordain kings into power or to proclaim judgment against particular rulers. The gospel of the kingdom operates on a different order, where the last will be first and the great ones will be servants (Luke 22:24–30). The kingdom of Jesus transcended all earthly kingdoms.

Trivializing sacred symbols. A significant challenge for Christians, living in a hostile society, is the adoption of sacred symbols and times for purposes that make them trivial. A cartoon of a businessman bunny being crucified on a tax form in the New Yorker roused the passions of Wendy Zoba:

Every year during the holiest week on the Christian calendar, believers’ remembrances of the passion and resurrection of Christ must compete with egg-dropping expeditions of ubiquitous bunnies. But, as in the case of the fat guy in the red suit, we put up with a degree of secular mythology. It goes with our society’s pluralistic territory.

So maybe Christians should not be surprised when secular images are melded with the sacred and plastered on the cover of a respected magazine. Who can know what muse moved Art Spiegelman to sketch “Theology of the Tax Cut,” a businessman-bunny crucified on a tax form? Or what the editors of the New Yorker had in mind when they ran it on their cover during Holy Week?

But it is one more affirmation that the impact of the cross has lost its meaning for many in our society. Madonna’s frivolous use of the cross to define her quasi-religious persona has spurred its marketability within mainstream culture. But its significance has also been lost more generally, as evidenced by the jewelry store clerk who asked a customer if she wanted the plain cross necklace or the one with the “little man” on it.

Spiegelman’s work has sarcastically exploited the image in an attempt to engage in a political discussion (tax reform) that has little to do with the essence of the crucifixion.30

Zoba’s concerns have their analogy with the golden calves of Jeroboam. The calf cannot be an ark, just as the Passion story is not about taxation. The adoption and adaptation of sacred symbols invariably brings a mixed or compromised message. The cross is the most sacred symbol for the Christian, representing the incomparable act of God in reconciling humankind to himself. Zoba is not asking society to adopt Christian doctrine but to respect their expression of it, just as people do with other culturally significant symbols. She cannot imagine Spiegelman depicting Santa Claus expiring in a gas chamber during Yom Kippur; such an offense is unthinkable, as it should be.

As is the case with Jeroboam and Rehoboam, social and political forces often control the use of symbols with a force that cannot be challenged. It becomes all the more imperative for believers to keep clear for themselves the sacred distinctions represented in their symbols and to use them appropriately as expressions of faith.

Christianity has a history of giving spiritual significance to pagan festivals and emblems. The time of the Christmas celebration, just after solstice, green trees, Yule logs, and lights are all accretions around the birth of Christ adopted from pagan festivities; the church has used them successfully in making its own confessions. In modern times the reverse is taking place. In the name of tolerance and freedom, a crèche may not be displayed in a public place, and there has even been talk that the term Christmas itself is offensive to other religions and should not be used in signs and advertising. Christmas has been extensively taken over for commercial purposes, so Christians must self-consciously retain the sacred significance the day has for them. Times and symbols of Christian confession are as challenging as when Jeroboam set up his calves and Rehoboam his sacred stones and Asherah poles.

Dividing over religious calendars. One final important lesson from the reforms of Jeroboam is the power for division around the dates of festal celebrations. Some of the greatest controversies in the Christian church have been over the celebration of Easter. From the earliest times there has been division. It is clear from the Gospels that the death of Jesus was associated with Passover, but the time is not clear. According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was a Passover meal, with the death of Jesus the next day, but according to John the death of Jesus occurred at the time of the Passover. By the second century some churches celebrated Easter at the time of the Passover, whatever day of the week it occurred, and some celebrated it on Sunday. With four different methods used to calculate the date of Easter by the beginning of the fourth century, the Council of Nicea (325) decided Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox.

In modern times division over the celebration of Easter occurs because of the use of Gregorian and Julian calendars. The Gregorian calendar shortened the length of a calendar year to bring it more into conformity with the actual solar year. The date was then adjusted to bring the calendar months closer to the seasons, so that currently thirteen days separates the two calendars.

The division of calendar is most painful in regions where Christians of Eastern and Western churches live in close proximity. Various attempts have been made to bring Christians into harmony on the celebration of Easter.31 Three solutions are possible to harmonize celebration of Easter: a fixed date like Christmas; a common mobile date related to the spring equinox; a fixed Sunday with a mobility of about seven days. The questions are difficult; should Easter be related to the season of spring (which does not pertain in the southern hemisphere), or to the date of the Jewish Passover? The one goal that should not be lost is giving a unified and common witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the celebration of Easter. Calendar is powerful in dividing communities; it has an equal power to unite faith confessions, if a way can be found to provide harmonization.

Original Meaning

Prophetic Condemnation of Jeroboam (12:33–13:34)

JEROBOAM’S ASCENT TO the altar on the first day of the festival is the initiation of the high place he has built.7 A man of God from Judah calls Jeroboam to account for his worship at Bethel (13:1–10).8 There is an old prophet from Bethel who tests this word from Yahweh (vv. 11–32). Literary analysts often treat this narrative as two different stories, each with its own distinct though related focus.9 They see the first as a polemic against the cultic establishment of Jeroboam, the second as a narrative about importance of obedience to the divine word. There is, however, a literary unity to this chapter that has its focus on the religious reforms of Jeroboam.10

The disobedience of Jeroboam to the word of Yahweh leads him to the same fate as the disobedience of the man of God who came from Judah. The faithful man of God becomes unfaithful, just as Jeroboam, the anointed king of Israel, goes his own way and becomes the object of the word of judgment. The man of God from Judah proclaims God’s word in declaring the folly of Jeroboam, but then chooses the way of folly himself in disobeying what he knows to be God’s word given to him.

A second revelation given to the man of God from Judah is pivotal in understanding the message of this story about two prophets. Three times we are told the man of God from Judah is not to eat bread, drink water, or return by the way he came. The first occurs in his encounter with Jeroboam. The king suffers paralysis of his arm in demanding that the prophet be seized (13:4). The prophet prays for the king and his arm is restored (v. 6), and the king in turn offers the man of God hospitality (v. 7), possibly as a sign of solidarity and affirmation of his new position. The prophet refuses, citing the prohibition of Yahweh given to him (vv. 8–10).11

When the old prophet from Bethel invites the man from Judah to return for food and drink, the latter repeats the prohibition, which he knows to be Yahweh’s word (vv. 16–17). The prophet from Bethel lies (v. 18), averring that a messenger from Yahweh has told him the man from Judah should return and eat bread with him. Following the lie does not excuse the man from Judah, who has demonstrated with a sign that he knows the word of Yahweh (v. 5). When the word of judgment comes to the prophet from Bethel the prohibition of eating and drinking is repeated (v. 22). The disobedience of the prophet from Judah with its attendant judgment becomes a demonstration of the judgment that rests on the house of Jeroboam.

The context and sequences of the story depict the judgment that awaits Israel.12 Jeroboam has built altars, which become a sin for the people (12:25–33). The obedient man of God proclaims judgment against the altar at Bethel as Jeroboam stands by (13:1–10). But the prophet himself compromises his mission returning to eat and drink, contrary to God’s word (vv. 11–19). The prophet of Judah is condemned by a word of Yahweh given by the prophet from Bethel and falls prey to a lion (vv. 20–25a). The donkey stands helplessly beside his body, just as Jeroboam stood beside the shattered altar. In subtle terms this scene shows Jeroboam to be an dumb animal.13

In the final scene the prophet from Bethel retrieves the body from the presence of the lion, which has not molested the body or mauled the donkey (vv. 25b–32). The lion’s abstention from eating serves to emphasize retrospectively the transgression of the man of God in eating prohibited food.14 The warning at the altar does nothing to change the ways of Jeroboam (vv. 33–34). He proceeds to ordain priests to serve at the high places. This is the sin of Jeroboam that leads to the dissolution of the nation and its ultimate destruction.

Prophetic Judgment against Jeroboam (14:1–20)

Bridging Contexts

LONG-STANDING DIVISIONS. David’s kingdom suffered from internal conflict even while it was emerging as a powerful empire in Palestine. Absalom shook the foundations of the kingdom in gaining the sympathy of the most influential people by taking advantage of the tribal institutions of eldership that David had transcended in a unified state (2 Sam. 15:13). David was forced to take refuge in Mahanaim in Transjordan, which was generally interested in a strong central monarchy. However, the deep division between Israel and Judah surfaced on his return, with David reliant mainly on his kinsmen in Judah and unable to internally unite them in one monarchical administration (19:15, 40–43). The action resulted in the revolt of Sheba the son of Bichri (20:1–2). Joab was able to stamp out the revolt without destroying any Israelite cities, but the internal division between Israel and Judah remained.

The words of Sheba in his rejection of David (2 Sam. 20:1) came to be used against Rehoboam after the death of Solomon (1 Kings 12:16):

What share do we have in David,

what part in Jesse’s son?

To your tents, O Israel!

Look after your own house, O David!

Poetic sayings like this circulated widely in oral form and were long remembered because they expressed deeply held feelings during the time of the united monarchy. This saying appears to be the converse of an earlier saying used to rally support for David. The Chronicler provides such a saying at the center of a chapter designed to show growing support for David (1 Chron. 12:18):

We are yours, O David!

We are with you, O son of Jesse!

Success, success to you,

and peace to those who help you, for your God will help you.

These words expressed support for David from a group that came from Benjamin and Judah (1 Chron. 12:17). It seems reasonable to suggest that such a saying arose early in David’s rise as a slogan of support.19 Later antagonism to David on the throne led to such a saying being developed beyond a personal level in the classic formulation of Sheba in his attack on David. When it surfaces again at the division of the kingdom, it takes on dynastic dimensions with the addition of the line, “Look after your own house, O David!”

The death of Solomon shows again how divided Israel remained during the time of Solomon’s reign. Matters seriously deteriorated toward the end of Solomon’s reign, as one of his highest officials over the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28) was exiled to Egypt (v. 40). It is not clear that Jeroboam’s “mutiny” is a revolt by the north against Solomon, but it enhances his candidacy for the throne of Israel.

What is significant in this account of highly complex political turmoil is the role of the prophets. It was a “man of God” named Shemaiah who averts a civil war by persuading the contestants to behave in accordance with Yahweh’s word (12:21–24). Rehoboam has 120,000 elite troops ready to whip the northern tribes back into submission, but he does not use them. Even as the words of the prophet Ahijah are being fulfilled in giving ten parts of the kingdom to Jeroboam (v. 15; cf. 11:31), the words of Shemaiah have the effect of averting a disastrous war.

Tactics of Jeroboam. Jeroboam does not prove more faithful than Solomon in following the demands of the covenant. Political motivations lead him to establish cult centers in the north (12:26–29) and a different time of the Passover (vv. 32–33). Not only does Jeroboam compromise the unity of worship with his innovations, he introduces syncretistic elements. The bull was the common symbol for the Canaanite fertility cult in the worship of Baal. The whole message of the temple was that the Creator could not be represented by any form, since he could not be limited to any element of creation. The counsel given to Jeroboam is no doubt shrewd in its accommodation of popular culture (12:28), but it is destructive of the exclusive worship of Yahweh; worship at Dan and Bethel become the sin that characterizes the northern kingdom.

The two cult shrines are particularly offensive. The offense is not just that it is contrary to worshiping at the one place (Deut. 12:4–7), since Shiloh and Gibeon were legitimate places of worship. The problem is syncretism with Canaanite religion; they are like the high places of the nations, which the Israelites were to destroy (12:2–3). The figure of the bull serves as a footstool for the king, much as the ark did in the temple. Canaanite iconography depicts Baal as standing on the back of a bull with the lightning rod and the thunder club in his hands.

The use of such a symbol has a certain logic. Jeroboam cannot imitate the temple in Jerusalem; if the symbols are not those of the covenant, they must have some other connection to the world of the people. The calf is readily understood as a representation of fertility and prosperity, aspects of Yahweh that the people desire to affirm. They also readily understand the calf as a symbol of an invisible god, as the Canaanites do. Though Jeroboam intends the calves to be a symbol of Yahweh who brought them up from Egypt (v. 28; cf. Ex. 32:1, 4), they can never be dissociated from the Phoenician god Hadad. They further limit the representation of Yahweh to specific elements of creation and providence and as such are a complete distortion of the Lord of the covenant. The shrines are a continual offense and lead to Phoenician practices so that in the days of Elijah there is virtually no one who has not bowed the knee to Baal.

Solomon fully established centralization of worship with the building of the temple; the pilgrimage festivals then had to be observed at the same time. In breaking with this innovation Jeroboam is able to establish himself as maintaining the traditions of God, who brought them up from Egypt (12:28).20 Not only does Jeroboam counter the claim of Rehoboam at Shechem, he counters the innovation of a centralized festival during the seventh month, before the harvest in the north is complete.

The calendar was a complex and often contentious issue in Israel. It was complex because it had to be based on annual solar cycles relating to harvest, but the year was based on lunar cycles, which do not coincide with the solar cycle. It was necessary to add a month approximately every three years in lunar calendar reckoning.21 It is possible that Jeroboam adds a month in a year when Judah does not, a convenient means of discouraging citizens of Israel to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.22 The decision to observe the feast in a different month would not be a radical change.

Though God has called Jeroboam to be king over ten tribes of Israel (11:31, 35), the success of his reign depends on obedience (vv. 37–38), the same conditions that pertained for David. Jeroboam’s reforms are well designed to establish an independent kingdom, but they do not foster worship of Yahweh. Prophetic judgment against Jeroboam comes at the great festival as the king ascends the altar at Bethel to make his dedication offering (12:33). Bethel had long been a sacred place of worship. Jacob built an altar there (Gen. 35:1, 6–7), Deborah presided near Bethel (Judg. 4:5), and the ark of the covenant was brought there (Judg. 20:27). Jeroboam follows sacred tradition in building an altar there, but his worship is not acceptable.

Jeroboam does not understand the lordship of Yahweh, which cannot be compromised by foreign symbols. The situation is exactly as Joshua said it would be when the covenant was first made at Shechem (Josh. 24:19–22). Though the people vowed to serve Yahweh, they did not understand the nature of such a commitment. Yahweh was not like other gods; he did not share his dominion.

The two prophets. A man of God from Judah brings the word of Yahweh in condemning Jeroboam’s place of worship. The mission of this prophet demonstrates both the inspiration of his message and the importance of unconditional obedience. The mission of this prophet is to deliver his message and return to Judah without accepting any hospitality (13:8–9). An old prophet from Bethel tests the man of God on this point, urging him to return and accept his offer of hospitality. Judgment comes on the prophet; a lion kills him, and in very unlion-like fashion stands guard over his body with the donkey standing by. The death of the man from Judah for his disobedience is proof for the prophet at Bethel that the man from Judah has indeed proclaimed the word of Yahweh. If the man of God had arrived safely home, it would have proved he did not truly bear a word from God.

The story about the two prophets illustrates the problem of false prophecy in Israel. Even during the last days of Judah, a prophet named Hananiah took a stand against Jeremiah, promising that the yoke of Babylon would be broken and the valuables plundered from the temple would be restored (Jer. 28:1–4). Death was his fate for false prophecy (v. 17). The prophetic warning against Jeroboam has an ironic twist. In the words of Crenshaw, “Here one sees the true prophet become false to his commission, and the ‘false prophet’ takes up the genuine word of God and lets it fall with shattering force upon the erring man of God.”23

In the present case, the problem of a lying prophet serves the interests of prophecy itself. The word of the prophet from Judah is truly a word from Yahweh (13:32). The narrative shows that Jeroboam had ample warning from a genuine man of God, thus magnifying his guilt.24 The prophet from Judah demonstrates unwittingly the critical requirement of obedience. A man of God, prophet or king, must be so committed to transcendent truth that his entire life is controlled by it. The old prophet from Bethel shows him tremendous respect. The prophet fetches the body, buries it in his own tomb, laments over him as a brother, and requests that his own body be placed alongside that of the venerable prophet (vv. 27–31). The unmolested body is a sign that the word of judgment against the man of God from Judah is authentic. Disobedience to the divine word is a fearful matter. The prophet from Judah was false to himself and paid the ultimate price.

In every age there are those who claim to speak for God. These chapters provide the clearest test for recognizing words from God: obedience by the prophet. A prophetic message apart from obedience cannot be assured as coming from God. In this regard the man from Judah fails, but in so doing proves that he was a true prophet. The judgment of death applied to both prophet and king. Ahijah the prophet, the man who promised Jeroboam ten parts of the kingdom, delivers the message that his dynasty will come to an abrupt end because of his disobedience (14:7–11). His son Nadab is murdered in a conspiracy after a two-year reign. The only member of Jeroboam’s family to have a honorable burial was a young, innocent child who dies of illness.

The sin of Jeroboam ultimately leads to the death of the nation because he leads them in the way of disobedience. The situation in the southern kingdom is not much different. A dynasty of kings is preserved as a light for David in Jerusalem, as Ahijah has said (11:36). The temple holds hope of true worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but it does not assure that worship. Rehoboam leads the nation in a way that provokes the anger of Yahweh as none before him (14:22), a foreboding omen for the future of that nation as well.

The way of the Canaanites. The Former Prophets of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua-Kings) show a pattern of apostasy from the covenant. The book of Joshua is a compilation of materials that show how God fulfilled his promise of giving Israel the land of Canaan as an inheritance. Judges shows how the Israelites themselves became indistinguishable from the Canaanites. Joshua shows how Canaan became Israelite, and Judges how Israel became Canaanite.

The complete apostasy of Israel is illustrated in Judges 19. A Levite on his return home refuses to lodge in the foreign city of Jebus (pre-Davidic Jerusalem), but goes on to the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19:11–14). The Levite and his company are ignored until finally an old man returning from work provides hospitality (vv. 15–21). That night the Benjamites demanded sexual relations with the Levite. When this is refused, they abuse the concubine of the Levite until she dies (vv. 22–28). These verses have precise verbal parallel to the account of Lot receiving the two messengers in Sodom (Gen. 19:4–11). This technique is called echo narrative; it is a means of using a previous account to interpret a new event.25 Sodom is the quintessence of Canaanitism in the Scriptures (e.g., Isa. 1:7–10). The end of the story of Judges shows that apostasy has made the Israelites indistinguishable from the Canaanites.

The apostasy of Jeroboam in Kings shows that Israel and Judah once again as indistinguishable from Canaanites. The Davidic promise in 1-2 Samuel explains how after the period of the Judges God has again provided rest for the Israelites in their land (2 Sam. 7:1; cf. Josh. 21:43–45). In spite of all the struggles in David’s house, God has provided for his chosen son to receive the throne. But at the end of his reign the nation divides and is in constant internal conflict. Though the majestic temple gives testimony to the incomparable God of the covenant, both Israel and Judah adopt the ways of the Canaanites.

Prophetic worldview. The history of Kings makes the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat the influence that sets the pattern for all the kings that follow after him and sets the kingdom on a fateful course of annihilation. This persistent reminder is given in the negative evaluation of virtually every Israelite king. The fall of Israel is summarized in the following words:

When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there. (2 Kings 17:21–23)

Jeroboam has been described as an Unheilsherrscher.26 The closest English equivalents are “calamitous ruler” or “ill-fated ruler,” but the German term connotes the elements of the king’s own instrumentality in bringing about misfortune through real or alleged misdeeds. This portrayal of Jeroboam as being responsible for the fall of Israel is peculiar to the history of Kings. The Chronicler does not take account of the fall of Israel, since his focus is on the history of Judah, but he does offer a lengthy censure of Jeroboam (2 Chron. 13:4–12). Though Jeroboam is soundly condemned for his idolatry, there is no suggestion that he is responsible for the ultimate disappearance of Israel. Isaiah gives a vivid description of the moral decay that led to the ruin of the northern kingdom, but he does not make Jeroboam the primary culprit in the matter (Isa. 9:7–21). Kings alone assigns blame and culpability for the fall of Israel to Jeroboam.

This kind of historical perspective is known in other history writing of the ancient Near East. Perhaps the closest parallel is a ruler named Naram-Sin of the third millennium (ca. 2230–2100 B.C.). Naram-Sin followed Sargon I as ruler of the empire of Akkad. His rule has been described as “the most brilliant period that the Sargonic empire—and perhaps any Mesopotamian empire—was to know.”27 In a poetic writing called the Curse of Agade, Naram-Sin is said to have incurred the curse of the gods by sacrilege. The Gutians from the distant mountains invaded the land like a swarm of grasshoppers. The gods pronounced a lengthy curse against Akkad, dooming it to utter destruction. Naram-Sin, in spite of all his political achievements, became the paradigm of an Unheilsherrscher as an example to other dynasties.

In spite of his divine calling and privileged position as a successor to Solomon, Jeroboam is remembered as the king who brought destruction to himself and to his land. Though Israel has a long history with many wicked kings, the prophetic historians view the fall of Israel as the responsibility of Jeroboam. This king violated three fundamental theological propositions of the kingdom of God: The promise of God belonged to the Davidic dynasty (cf. 12:26–27); only the temple could represent the divine presence (12:28–29); the worship of God was to take place in Jerusalem (12:30–33). Ahijah condemns Jeroboam on each of these three counts.28 Jeroboam’s dynasty ends because he established other symbols of worship so the people would not go to Jerusalem (14:9–11). The prophetic interpretation of Israel’s history is that Jeroboam has fundamentally undermined loyalty to God and is thus responsible for the nation’s destruction.

It is often said that those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. The problem is that the lessons of history are not so transparent. History is a complexity of factors; many different causes are involved in the events that transpire. The lessons of historians are themselves shaped by the worldview of the history writer. According to the Mesopotamian legends, Naram-Sin caused the fall and destruction of Akkad. In their worldview the gods were responsible for the prosperity of their cities, so the fall of a city was logically explained by sacrilege against the gods. In this respect the prophets of Israel follow the same method; they believe that Yahweh has given the land to Israel; he is offended and brings judgment on the land.

Modern historians are different in their worldview; they interpret historical events according to their own economic, social, or anthropological theories, often without making their controlling assumptions explicit. Insofar as worldview is an expression of faith, modern histories are nevertheless controlled by religion, just as were those of the ancients.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

DO NOT BE CONFORMED to this world. The division of the kingdom is a sobering reminder of the danger of conforming to surrounding culture, all the while believing that confessions of faith are being followed and supported. The condemnations from Ahijah and the prophet of Judah make the sin of Israel seem self-evident. The story of the prophet from Bethel who lies in contradiction to the prophet from Judah is a reminder that Jeroboam had his supporting cast of prophets and priests who regarded their version of worship to be an acceptable expression of their faith in God.

Jeroboam goes back to earlier traditions in some of his innovations: a northern capital, northern sites of worship, and a northern time of the fall festival. In spite of the sign of a broken altar and a withered arm, Jeroboam refuses to change his ways. The nation of Israel follows him, even though they see the cost of disobedience in the death of the prophet from Judah. The conflict Judah has with the north is not because of idolatry, for Rehoboam leads Judah down the same path of syncretism. Political agendas and cultural pressures have an enormous power to distort adherence to faith in God and obedience to a divinely ordered way of life.

Jesus, in his high priestly prayer for his disciples, did not ask that God take them out of the world, but that God would keep them from the evil one; they were not of this world, just as Jesus himself was not of this world (John 17:15–16). Christians have struggled with this concept and debated it in many ways. Christians understand that they live by the values and conduct of the kingdom of God, but it is not easy to know how these are to be exercised in particular circumstances. To some extent believers must conform to the culture around them as part of the world they live in, but in certain ways their lives need to manifest a different value system.

It is easy for Christians to become consumed with the pursuit of wealth and a better standard of living. Such a standard is a good goal, but not if it becomes the purpose for work and use of one’s time. Christians understand that good relationships within family and community must be a high priority, but it is difficult to maintain good relations in the stress of daily life and encounters with difficult individuals. Some would even say “Christian businessman” is an oxymoron, since the interaction of business often requires dealings that are contrary to values of the Christian community. It is easiest to maintain a form of faith by certain practices like prayer and worship, even though much else of importance has been critically compromised.

Even maintaining an expression of Christian faith has become a challenge. Many churches are facing an acute shortage of pastors. One denomination reports that it will need one hundred new pastors each year for the next ten years to replace those who are now between fifty-five and sixty-five years old. At the same time their seminary has half as many students as it did twenty years ago. The growth in pastoral needs is an indication that the influence of the church and the work of pastoral teaching are implicitly held to be of inferior value.

There are various reasons for pastoral work not being a career of choice for gifted young Christians. A modern society occupied with individual rights and activist concerns for political agendas has increasingly marginalized the church. There was a time when the opinion of a minister was respected in ethical discussion, but more often now values based on faith are regarded as illegitimate in public life. There is a type of state religion established by government and courts on moral and ethical issues. Instead of recognizing this as a counter religious force, some Christians seem to be prepared to conform to these cultural norms. There is little encouragement for gifted young people to take up the challenge of thoughtfully articulating their faith in a society of a contrary religion. Christian leaders are pursuing careers where their opinion can be respected. This is important, but if it happens at the expense of thoughtful leadership in Christian congregations, there will be an increasing conformity to the culture and standards of a self-centered, self-absorbed, secular society.

The existentialism of the mid-twentieth century led to a postmodern culture with its own view of life and the world. Truth has become an individual matter, and spirituality is related to one’s emotional health. Evidence is growing that this culture has begun to compromise Christian faith, much as the calves and calendar of Jeroboam and the sacred stones and Asherah poles of Rehoboam led to the dissolution of faith in Israel and Judah. Many are aware of this compromise of faith, but too many deny it. Without thoughtful and informed leadership, the church is in danger of becoming more religiously obscurantist and irrelevant.

As in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam, there is an expression of faith that has compromised biblical life and values so it is indistinguishable from the surrounding culture. Jesus did not ask that his followers be taken from the world, but that they would be sanctified in the truth of God’s Word and sent into the world (John 17:17–18). Purity from this world must begin with clear Christian thinking. Failure to clearly distinguish Christian faith from postmodern relativism will lead Christians to conform to the ways of the world.

Interpreting the signs. The story of the division of the kingdom should cause Christians to give careful thought to present history and life in this world. Believers are often prepared to explain the unfolding of political events in terms of divine judgment. It was the prerogative of inspired prophets to offer such analysis, especially when passing judgment on false worship as flagrant as that of Jeroboam. Jeroboam knew well the power of Ahijah to pass judgment on his reign, since his coming to power had been through Ahijah’s word from the beginning.

Jesus discouraged his disciples from looking for signs of final judgment in the events of their times. He said they would hear of wars and insurrections, but they were not to fear; this was a sign that the end was not yet (Luke 21:9). All these things are part of the times of this age, but those who belong to the kingdom of God need not fear. The falling of kingdoms is not in itself an indication that the end is immanent. The story of Jeroboam and Rehoboam beckons Christians to be vigilant about doing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven so that they will be distinguished from the ways of the world, but they should not be occupied with explaining how God is working in the events of the present time that his kingdom may come.

The prophets of Israel were able to proclaim boldly the work of God in their own history, declaring that the fall of the kingdom was the immediate result of disobedience. Prophetic activity was not without conflict in its own context, and it was possible for a true prophet to be deceived and to fail. It is necessary to have an understanding of the work of God in history, but it is not self-evident how God is at work in political events. Web sites such as raptureready.com track events that are a sign of the end: earthquakes, floods, plagues, crime, false prophets, and economic measurements like unemployment that add to instability and civil unrest. These are taken as signs of the arrival of Antichrist or the judgment that will bring the end of the world.

There is a danger in looking for the end of the world by an average of end-time activity. The warning of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians was that the end would come when they were thinking everything was safe (1 Thess. 5:1–3). Though warfare, earthquakes, famine, pestilences, and fearful events will precede the time of the end, Jesus warns that the end will come when his followers are not ready (Luke 21:34–36). They will be weighed down with the pleasures and anxieties of life, and the final day will arrive as a trap. Efforts to read prophecy in terms of calamitous events may actually be a distraction from the critical issues of being ready for the kingdom. It is important to watch the signs of the times, but these in themselves can never tell us precisely what God is doing in his great work of bringing his kingdom to this world.

Catastrophic events have always led to a rising interest in the end of the world. When Rome was sacked in A.D. 410 masses of people were convinced the end was near; similar thoughts surfaced when the Black Death wiped out one-third of the population of fourteenth-century Europe or when the Lisbon earthquake in 1755 created shudders all across Europe. As reported by Nancy Gibbs, events of the twentieth century have led believers to fit more recent events like the attacks on the World Trade Center into a scriptural grid of end-time events.

The rise of Hitler, a wicked man who wanted to murder the Jews, read like a Bible story; his utter destruction, and the subsequent return of the Jews to Israel after 2,000 years and the capture of Jerusalem’s Old City by the Israelis in 1967, were taken by devout Christians and Jews alike as evidence of God’s handiwork.29

The Old Testament prophets consistently confessed that God was at work in the political events of this world. Isaiah declared that Assyria was the rod of God’s anger against Israel (Isa. 10:5), but Assyria would itself be destroyed under God’s judgment. The axe should not pride itself over the one who swings it, nor should the staff try to lift the one that is not wood (10:15). Believers may be confident that God is at work in present events to bring about the consummation of redemption and the judgment of the Babylon of the last days (Rev. 18:2). But this does not grant a license to explain present catastrophes as judgments of God against particular nations in a scheme of how the world must end, nor can anyone know how soon the final judgment will come. The New Testament warns believers against attempts to judge the events of their times, since God has chosen not to reveal the times and the seasons that he has put under his own authority (Acts 1:7). Instead, they are called upon to be witnesses to the kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.

Just as there is danger in trying to interpret present events for the future, there is also danger in laying blame for the events of the past. When Abijah the son of Jeroboam became ill, the king sent a disguised messenger to the prophet who had commissioned him. The death of the child was not merely a judgment against Jeroboam but against his whole dynasty (14:10–11). This judgment was a judgment against the entire nation, which would go into exile (vv. 15–16). It was never the role of Jesus’ followers to ordain kings into power or to proclaim judgment against particular rulers. The gospel of the kingdom operates on a different order, where the last will be first and the great ones will be servants (Luke 22:24–30). The kingdom of Jesus transcended all earthly kingdoms.

Trivializing sacred symbols. A significant challenge for Christians, living in a hostile society, is the adoption of sacred symbols and times for purposes that make them trivial. A cartoon of a businessman bunny being crucified on a tax form in the New Yorker roused the passions of Wendy Zoba:

Every year during the holiest week on the Christian calendar, believers’ remembrances of the passion and resurrection of Christ must compete with egg-dropping expeditions of ubiquitous bunnies. But, as in the case of the fat guy in the red suit, we put up with a degree of secular mythology. It goes with our society’s pluralistic territory.

So maybe Christians should not be surprised when secular images are melded with the sacred and plastered on the cover of a respected magazine. Who can know what muse moved Art Spiegelman to sketch “Theology of the Tax Cut,” a businessman-bunny crucified on a tax form? Or what the editors of the New Yorker had in mind when they ran it on their cover during Holy Week?

But it is one more affirmation that the impact of the cross has lost its meaning for many in our society. Madonna’s frivolous use of the cross to define her quasi-religious persona has spurred its marketability within mainstream culture. But its significance has also been lost more generally, as evidenced by the jewelry store clerk who asked a customer if she wanted the plain cross necklace or the one with the “little man” on it.

Spiegelman’s work has sarcastically exploited the image in an attempt to engage in a political discussion (tax reform) that has little to do with the essence of the crucifixion.30

Zoba’s concerns have their analogy with the golden calves of Jeroboam. The calf cannot be an ark, just as the Passion story is not about taxation. The adoption and adaptation of sacred symbols invariably brings a mixed or compromised message. The cross is the most sacred symbol for the Christian, representing the incomparable act of God in reconciling humankind to himself. Zoba is not asking society to adopt Christian doctrine but to respect their expression of it, just as people do with other culturally significant symbols. She cannot imagine Spiegelman depicting Santa Claus expiring in a gas chamber during Yom Kippur; such an offense is unthinkable, as it should be.

As is the case with Jeroboam and Rehoboam, social and political forces often control the use of symbols with a force that cannot be challenged. It becomes all the more imperative for believers to keep clear for themselves the sacred distinctions represented in their symbols and to use them appropriately as expressions of faith.

Christianity has a history of giving spiritual significance to pagan festivals and emblems. The time of the Christmas celebration, just after solstice, green trees, Yule logs, and lights are all accretions around the birth of Christ adopted from pagan festivities; the church has used them successfully in making its own confessions. In modern times the reverse is taking place. In the name of tolerance and freedom, a crèche may not be displayed in a public place, and there has even been talk that the term Christmas itself is offensive to other religions and should not be used in signs and advertising. Christmas has been extensively taken over for commercial purposes, so Christians must self-consciously retain the sacred significance the day has for them. Times and symbols of Christian confession are as challenging as when Jeroboam set up his calves and Rehoboam his sacred stones and Asherah poles.

Dividing over religious calendars. One final important lesson from the reforms of Jeroboam is the power for division around the dates of festal celebrations. Some of the greatest controversies in the Christian church have been over the celebration of Easter. From the earliest times there has been division. It is clear from the Gospels that the death of Jesus was associated with Passover, but the time is not clear. According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was a Passover meal, with the death of Jesus the next day, but according to John the death of Jesus occurred at the time of the Passover. By the second century some churches celebrated Easter at the time of the Passover, whatever day of the week it occurred, and some celebrated it on Sunday. With four different methods used to calculate the date of Easter by the beginning of the fourth century, the Council of Nicea (325) decided Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the spring equinox.

In modern times division over the celebration of Easter occurs because of the use of Gregorian and Julian calendars. The Gregorian calendar shortened the length of a calendar year to bring it more into conformity with the actual solar year. The date was then adjusted to bring the calendar months closer to the seasons, so that currently thirteen days separates the two calendars.

The division of calendar is most painful in regions where Christians of Eastern and Western churches live in close proximity. Various attempts have been made to bring Christians into harmony on the celebration of Easter.31 Three solutions are possible to harmonize celebration of Easter: a fixed date like Christmas; a common mobile date related to the spring equinox; a fixed Sunday with a mobility of about seven days. The questions are difficult; should Easter be related to the season of spring (which does not pertain in the southern hemisphere), or to the date of the Jewish Passover? The one goal that should not be lost is giving a unified and common witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the celebration of Easter. Calendar is powerful in dividing communities; it has an equal power to unite faith confessions, if a way can be found to provide harmonization.