1 Kings 12

CHAPTER TEN

THE DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM

1 Kings 12:1-33

The signs of disintegration in the empire during Solomon’s last days have been noted by the historian. Still the events recorded in Chapter s 12 and 13 are somewhat shocking and certainly sad. In these Chapter s the historian speaks of (1) the great schism (1 Kings 12:1-24); and (2) the great apostasy (1 Kings 12:25-33).

REVIEW OF CHAPTER TEN

I. FACTS TO MASTER

A. What is the significance of each of the following places in chapter 12:

1. Shechem

2. Israel

3. Penuel

4. Egypt

5. Judah

6. Bethel

7. Jerusalem

8. Ephraim

9. Dan

B. What role did each of the following people play in chapter 12:

1. Rehoboam

2. Ahijah

3. Adoram

4. Jeroboam

5. Shemaiah

C. Numbers worth remembering:

1. 931 B.C.

2. Eighth month

3. Three days

4. 180,000

D. The following words should recall to mind significant facts related in chapter 12:

1. yoke

2. chariot

3. whips

4. calves

5. scorpions

6. priests

7. tents

8. feast

9. stones

10. incense

II. QUESTIONS TO PONDER

Why did Rehoboam respond to the summons to meet with the Northern leaders at Shechem?

Did the Northern tribes make unreasonable demands of Rehoboam at Shechem? Why did the king follow the advice of his junior counselors?

What really caused the schism of 931 B.C.?

What is meant by the expression, My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins?

What advantages did Israel have after the schism? What of Judah?

What problems of adjustment did Jeroboam face following the schism of 931 B.C.?

Why did Jeroboam fear for his people to go to Jerusalem to worship? Why did Jeroboam use the calf symbol in his worship?

In what ways did the religion of Jeroboam differ from that practiced in Jerusalem?

What was the theological significance of the calves?

1 Kings 12:1-5

I. THE GREAT SCHISM 12:1-24

The gripping narrative of Rehoboam’s folly unfolds in the first twenty-four verses of chapter 12. For study purposes this narrative may be divided into five units: (1) the request of Israel (1 Kings 12:1-5); (2) the recommendation of the counselors (1 Kings 12:6-11); (3) the reply of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:12-15); (4) the rebellion of Israel (1 Kings 12:16-20); and (5) the response of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:21-24).

A. THE REQUEST OF ISRAEL 12:1-5

**TRANSLATION

(1) Then Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel came to Shechem to make him king. (2) And it came to pass when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard (now he was yet in Egypt, where he had fled from before King Solomon; while Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, (3) they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came and spoke onto Rehoboam, saying, (4) Your father made our yoke hard; you therefore lighten the hard service of your father and the heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you. (5) And he said unto them, Go yet for three days, then return unto me. So the people departed.

COMMENTS**

Rehoboam was no child when he ascended the throne. It would appear from 1 Kings 14:21 and 2 Chronicles 12:13 that he was forty-one at the time of his accession. Soon after his Jerusalem coronation Rehoboam was invited to Shechem, the ancient gathering place of the Northern tribes (Joshua 24) and most important city in Ephraim, to receive the acclaim of all Israel, i.e., the Northern tribes.[321] It would not appear that the Northern tribes had any concrete plans to revolt at this time, for verse one plainly states that they gathered in Shechem to make him king. Nonetheless, these tribes were disgruntled because of Solomon’s high-handed tactics and rigorous taxation policies, and their insistence that Rehoboam meet with them on their own ground should have been a significant hint that they would brook no negative response to their demands.

[321] Slotki (SBB, p. 92) thinks the tribes of the South as well as those from the North assembled at Shechem.

Jeroboam son of Nebat served as the spokesman for the dissident tribes at Shechem. Since the time of his abortive rebellion against Solomon, Jeroboam had resided in Egypt. When Solomon died the elders of Israel immediately sent to Egypt to inform Jeroboam of these developments and to invite him to return and speak on their behalf to Solomon’s would-be successor (1 Kings 12:2). Putting forth Jeroboam as their spokesman was a plain indication that the elders did not mean to be ignored (1 Kings 12:3).

The dissidents complained that Solomon had placed a heavy yoke upon them, and they requested that Rehoboam grant them a measure of relief. If this relief was forthcoming, the elders promised to serve Rehoboam. There is, of course, an implied threat in this conditional allegiance (1 Kings 12:4). There is no reason to think that the grievance of the Northern tribes was fictitious. While it is true that the reign of Solomon had brought plenty and prosperity to Israel (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 4:25), that national glory had only been achieved by means of a galling conscription and perhaps heavy taxation as well. In view of the magnitude of Solomon’s undertakings, and the number of men necessarily employed in executing them, the forced labor must have involved no little hardship and dissatisfaction. That the petitioners are not exaggerating is indicated by the fact that both the aged counselors (1 Kings 12:7) and the writer of the book (1 Kings 12:13-15) manifest some degree of sympathy with their request.

Rehoboam wisely postponed his decision regarding the Northern ultimatum for three days. The new king did not suffer from impetuosity. He evidently sensed how much depended upon his reply. If he complied with the request, he was accepting the crown conditionally, and there was danger he would not have the power to rule. On the other hand, if he denied their request, there was danger of revolt. He therefore asked for three days in which to deliberate. The new king wished to use that time to consult with his advisers, some of whom had accompanied him to Shechem, and others of whom were hastily summoned from Jerusalem. Viewing Rehoboam’s proposed three day delay as a reasonable interval, the dissidents peacefully departed (1 Kings 12:5). There is no hint as yet that the Northern tribes had already determined to revolt.

1 Kings 12:6-11

B. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNSELORS 12:6-11

**TRANSLATION

(6) And King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had stood before Solomon his father when he was alive, saying, How do you counsel me to respond to this people? (7) And they spoke unto him, saying, If you will be a servant to this people today, serve them, respond to them, and speak unto them good words; then they will be your servants forever. (8) But he rejected the counsel of the elders who had advised him, and consulted with the young men with whom he had grown up, who stood before him. (9) And he said unto them, What do you counsel, that we may respond to this people who have said unto me, Lighten the yoke which your father placed upon us. (10) And the young men who grew up with him said unto him, Thus you shall say to this people who have spoken unto you, saying, Your father made our yoke heavy, but as for you, lighten our yoke! Thus you shall speak unto them: My little finger is thicker than the loins of my father! (11) And therefore though my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke; my father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.

COMMENTS**

Rehoboam turned first to the older men who were experienced in statecraft from their service in the court of Solomon and asked them for their advice about handling the dissidents (1 Kings 12:6). They advised Rehoboam to be a servant unto the people for this dayto accede to their demands and make reasonable concessions to them. If the new king would so humble himself this once and momentarily refrain from exercising autocratic kingly power, he would gain the allegiance of the Northern tribes forever (1 Kings 12:7). Playing the role of a servant for the one day would gain for the new king many servants forever!

Rehoboam had other ideas. Having so recently tasted the sweets of royalty, the rash and imperious young king was not in a compromising mood. Spurning the advice of his father’s counselors, Rehoboam turned to young men who served as his personal courtiers and counselors. These were men who had grown up with Rehoboam in Solomon’s harem (1 Kings 12:8). Of these friends and advisers Rehoboam asked the same question which he had asked of the elders with three slight changes. (1) He emphasized the pronoun you in the Hebrew as though he anticipated a very different answer from that which he had heard from the elders. (2) In the words that we may respond he identified these young men with himself. (3) He repeated the request of the dissidents, no doubt expressing his contempt for their audacity by the tone of his voice (1 Kings 12:9).

The young men sensed already what their friend and king wanted to hear. The author of Kings seems to express contempt for these young men by again mentioning that they were the ones who had grown up with Rehoboam. They were accustomed to autocratic rule and warned the king against accepting the crown conditionally. These young men viewed the request of the dissidents as presumptuous and they urged the king to follow a get tough policy with them. They suggested that he use what must have been a proverbial expression, My little finger is thicker than the loins of my father. The meaning of this expression is quite clear: Rehoboam’s weakness will be stronger than his father’s strength (1 Kings 12:10). They urged Rehoboam to threaten to place additional burdens upon the people. Solomon had chastised them with whips; but the chastisement under Rehoboam would be with scorpions (1 Kings 12:11). Some doubt exists as to whether scorpions is purely a figure of speech reflecting an even greater pain to be administered under Rehoboam (Hammond), or whether it refers to a particular kind of whip, perhaps one with barbed points like the point of a scorpion’s sting (Keil). In either case scorpions would constitute an ominous threat. The advice of the young counselors was based on the idea that appeasement would not work. Any attempt to placate the people by kindly words, they feared, would be interpreted as weakness. They advised him to assert his authority unmistakably.

1 Kings 12:12-13

B. THE REPLY OF REHOBOAM 12:12-13

**TRANSLATION

(12) Then Jeroboam and all the people came unto Rehoboam on the third day as the king had spoken, saying, Return unto me on the third day. (13) And the king answered the people harshly, for he had abandoned the counsel which had been proposed by the elders. (14) And he spoke unto them according to the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will discipline you with scorpions. (15) So the king did not hearken unto the people; for it was a turn of events brought about by the LORD, in order to establish His word, which the LORD had spoken by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam son of Nebat.

COMMENTS**

On the third day Jeroboam and the representatives of the Northern tribes appeared again before Rehoboam as the king had instructed (1 Kings 12:12). Abandoning the course proposed by the elder statesmen, Rehoboam spoke harshly to the petitioners (1 Kings 12:13), repeating verbatim the declaration of his young advisers (1 Kings 12:14). Rehoboam’s pride is inexcusable and reprehensible. Nevertheless, the Lord used this incident to accomplish His purpose of bringing about a division within the kingdom. God may even use the sinful acts of men to accomplish His will. What happened at Shechem led to the fulfillment of the predictions made by the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam some two decades earlier (1 Kings 12:15).

1 Kings 12:16-20

C. THE REBELLION OF ISRAEL 12:16-20

**TRANSLATION

(16) When all of Israel saw that the king did not hearken unto them, the people responded to the king, saying, What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse! To your tents, O Israel! Now look after your own house, David! So Israel went to their tents. (17) But as for the children of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. (18) And King Rehoboam sent Adoram who was over the forced labor, but all Israel pelted him with stones, and he died. Then King Rehoboam hastened to mount his chariot to flee to Jerusalem. (19) So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. (20) And when all of Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him unto the assembly, and they made him king over all Israel. None followed after the house of David except the tribe of Judah alone.

COMMENTS**

After briefly consulting among themselves, the representatives of the Northern tribes defiantly replied to the king: What portion have we in David? This is the same expression used in 2 Samuel 20:1 and seems to mean, We are receiving no consideration from David’s seed, so why yield homage to him? (cf. 2 Samuel 19:43). The dissidents further declared, Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse, i.e., his tribe is not ours; his interests are not ours. To your tents, O Israel, they shouted. This was a battle cry that had its origins in the period of the desert wanderings. As they angrily stomped out of the audience chamber they shouted one last warning, Now see to your own house, David, i.e., Let the seed of David henceforth reign over the tribe of Judah if it can; but let him not interfere in the affairs of the other tribes. With these ominous words, the representatives of Israel departed for their tents, i.e., their dwellings (1 Kings 12:16).

The battle-cry here is similar to the one used by Sheba (2 Samuel 20:1) when he rebelled against David, and yet the circumstances are very different. Sheba cried, We have no portion in David because he believed in the dynastic principle, and believed that the scepter should remain in the house of Saul. In this case, the people used the battle-cry to indicate that they were not committed to the dynastic principle. They felt no compulsion to accept Solomon’s heir as their king. The right to bestow sovereignty rested with the people.[322]

[322] Honor, JCBR, p. 176.

Only those members of the ten tribes who happened to be settled within the territory of Judah rendered homage to Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:17). A number of Simeonites were certainly among them (cf. Joshua 19:1-9). From this point on, the term children of Israel will be used by the author of Kings in its restricted sense as referring to the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom, the kingdom of Jeroboam.

Rehoboam was determined to demonstrate to the rebels that he would not be intimidated. He therefore sought immediately to force the Northern tribes to pay tribute and thereby to recognize his sovereignty. The king assigned this task to Adoram,[323] the superintendent of forced labor, a man who would naturally be obnoxious to the people of the North. But the Northern tribes would no longer allow themselves to be coerced into serving the Davidic dynasty. With vicious determination they picked up stones and pelted Adoram until he died. The death of Adoram showed Rehoboam that the revolt was for real and that his own life was in danger in Shechem. He therefore lost no time in hastening south to the safety of Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:18).

[323] Adoram is usually identified with Adoniram who served as superintendent of forced labor under Solomon (1 Kings 4:6).

With the single exception of the death of Adoram, the revolution of 931 B.C. was a bloodless one. The author of Kings seems to regard that death as marking the formal beginning of the rebellion which was to continue until those Northern tribes were carried away captive in 722 B.C. The phrase unto this day (1 Kings 12:19) indicates that the source for this history utilized by the author of Kings was written before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. The phrase reveals a hope that the two sister kingdoms would ultimately be reunited.

The representatives of the Northern tribes returned to their respective communities and reported what had transpired at Shechem. When the people heard that Jeroboam had returned from Egypt, they were anxious to assemble and crown him. The sacred historian does not reveal where the coronation ceremony was held, but it was likely at Shechem soon after the flight of Rehoboam. This public and formal consecration of Jeroboam completed the secession of the Northern tribes. Only the tribe of Judah (1 Kings 12:20) and the tiny tribe of Benjamin rendered allegiance to Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:21).

It is somewhat surprising to find that Benjamin cast its lot with Judah. The hereditary ties of Benjamin were with the Northern tribes. Furthermore, when the scepter was transferred from the house of the Benjaminite Saul to the house of David, deep and bitter jealousy between the two tribes developed. Apart from David’s struggles with Abner and Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, David had to deal with rebellions led by Sheba (2 Samuel 20:1) and Shimei (2 Samuel 16:5 ff), both Benjaminites. Nevertheless, when the Northern tribes fell away, Benjamin never seems to have wavered in its allegiance to the house of David. It was probably their interest in Jerusalem which drew Benjamin close to Judah. This magnificent city, the civil and religious capital of the empire, was on the border between Benjamin and Judah. Separation from Judah would mean the loss of Jerusalem to Judah. But while the tribe as a whole elected to adhere to the house of David, some portions of BenjaminBethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, for examplewere controlled by the Northern Kingdom.

1 Kings 12:21-24

D. THE RESPONSE OF REHOBOAM 12:21-24

**TRANSLATION

(21) Now Rehoboam came to Jerusalem and assembled the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred eighty thousand chosen men who were warriors, to fight with the house of Israel, to cause the kingdom to return to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. (22) But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, (23) Say unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and the rest of the people, saying, (24) Thus says the LORD: Do not go up and fight with your brethren the house of Israel. Return each one to his house, for this thing has come from Me. And they hearkened to the word of the LORD, and turned, and departed according to the word of the LORD.

COMMENTS**

Rehoboam was determined to crush the Northern uprising with military force. To this end he gathered his forces from Judah and Benjamin. The figure of a hundred eighty thousand men (1 Kings 12:21) is not an overstatement in view of the fact that David’s census found some five hundred thousand men in Judah(IIS24:9).[324]

[324] Some commentators have tried to reduce the size of this army by suggesting that the Hebrew word -eleph may mean tribal division as well as thousand. Thus Rehoboam mustered a hundred eighty tribal divisions. Calculating two hundred men to a division, he would have had about thirty-six thousand men in his army. See Honor, JCBR, p. 184. This theory regarding the meaning of -eleph will not bear the test of careful investigation throughout the Old Testament.

Whereas Rehoboam wanted to fight for the unity of his kingdom, God had other plans. Shemaiah the man of God (1 Kings 12:22) was sent to the king and the loyalists with a divine prohibition (1 Kings 12:23). The term man of God is a favorite expression of the author of Kings to designate servants of the Lord, particularly prophets. The remnant of the people of 1 Kings 12:23 are the children of Israel who lived in Judah and remained loyal to the crown. Shemaiah,[325] in the name of the Lord, ordered a halt to the planned invasion of the North, and ordered every soldier to return to his house. Two reasons were cited for this order. The Northern tribes were still the brethren of those who lived in the South. Furthermore, this national disruption was God-ordained. Thus a prophet of Judah (Shemaiah) confirmed what a prophet of Israel (Ahijah) had announced. Because of this prophetic prohibition, the men of Judah called off the planned attack on the North and returned to their homes (1 Kings 12:24).[326]

[325] Shemaiah was the historian of Rehoboam’s reign (2 Chronicles 12:15).

[326] At this point the Septuagint (Greek version) inserts a long addition which differs from and contradicts the Hebrew account in several particulars. Rawlinson (BC, II, S6ff.) has demonstrated conclusively that this Greek addition is a compilation of a later date, is untrustworthy, and certainly has no right to a place in the canonical Scriptures.

1 Kings 12:25-33

II. THE GREAT APOSTASY 12:25-33

**TRANSLATION

(25) And Jeroboam built Shechem in Mt. Ephraim, and dwelt in it. And he went out from there and built Penuel. (26) And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now the kingdom will return to the house of David. (27) If this people go up to make sacrifices in the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, then the heart of this people shall turn unto their lord, unto Rehoboam the king of Judah. (28) So the king took counsel, and made two golden calves, and he said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. (29) And he placed one in Bethel and the other he put in Dan. (30) And this thing became a sin, for the people went before the one as far as Dan. (31) And he made houses on high places, and made priests from all classes of the people who were not from the house of Levi. (32) And Jeroboam made a feast in the eighth month, the fifteenth day of the month, like the feast which was in Judah, and he went up to the altar! Thus he did in Bethel, offering sacrifices to the calves which he had made. And he stationed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. (33) And they went up to the altar which he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day of the eighth month which he had devised from his own heart; and he made a feast for the children of Israel, and went up to the altar to offer incense.

COMMENTS**

Jeroboam’s first concern as king of Israel was to strengthen his position by fortifying his capital at Shechem. Shechem was the most prominent city in the North, and was ideally located in Mt. Ephraim, i.e., the mountain district of the tribe of Ephraim. Not long after he had completed the rebuilding or fortifying of Shechem, Jeroboam was forced to temporarily move the seat of government across the Jordan river to Penuel in the area of Gilead (1 Kings 12:25). This sudden shift was made necessary by the invasion of Pharaoh Shishak concerning which the sacred historian will have more to say in chapter 14.

Another urgent concern of Jeroboam was the creation of a cult in the North which would rival the divinely revealed religion practiced in the South. That Jeroboam was uneasy and insecure in his new role as king is the clear implication of 1 Kings 12:26. He realized that if his people continued to travel to Jerusalem three times each year to keep the prescribed feasts, the religious sentiment would soon reassert itself and sweep him and his new dynasty away (1 Kings 12:27). With one religion, one sanctuary, one priesthood, there could not long endure two kingdoms. Furthermore, many of the psalms sung in the Jerusalem Temple worship centered on the divine promises made to the house of David. Jeroboam simply could not afford to have his people thus indoctrinated. When Jeroboam saw that the priests and Levites who were in the North were emigrating to Judah (2 Chronicles 11:13; 2 Chronicles 11:16), he knew he could wait no longer, and he began to implement the plan upon which he had been meditating for some time.

After taking counsel of his closest advisers, Jeroboam determined that the new religion should center about the images of two golden calves which he erected in the shrines at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:29). Propaganda poured forth from the palace in an attempt to persuade the people to change their religious affiliation. Jeroboam argued that it was inconvenient for the people to have to make the long walk to Jerusalem for worship. Besides, the golden calves which he had erected represented the divine personages who had led the nation out of Egypt (1 Kings 12:28). To further encourage the people to accept his counterfeit religion, Jeroboam placed his calves conveniently in Bethel in the southern part of his kingdom and at Dan in the north (1 Kings 12:29). Both of these cities were in some sense sanctuaries already. Bethel had been a holy place since the days when Jacob received his heavenly vision there (Genesis 28:11-19). A shrine had been set up at Dan during the days of the Judges by a grandson of Moses (Judges 18:31).

The establishment of the calf religion in the North was a sin, for it both set at nought the express prohibition of the decalogue (Exodus 20:4), and also disregarded the one sanctuary of God’s choice (Deuteronomy 12:5). By thus establishing these calf centers, Jeroboam not only committed gross sin himself, but he provided an occasion for the people to sin (cf. 1 Kings 14:16; 1 Kings 15:26). The last clause of 1 Kings 12:30 is difficult, and there is no agreement among commentators as to its meaning. The people went to worship before the one even unto Dan is probably intended to convey the zeal with which the people pursued their new religion. If this interpretation is correct, the irony here becomes manifest. Ostensibly, Jerusalem had been rejected as a place of worship because of its distance; but the people became so addicted to the calf symbol that they willingly journeyed to distant Dan to engage in this worthless worship.

Further details of Jeroboam’s counterfeit religion are presented in 1 Kings 12:31-33.

1. He built a house of high places. Some take this to mean that he built such a house at both Bethel and Dan, i.e., he built two temples for his calves (Keil; Rawlinson). Others think that a shrine already existed at Dan, and that 1 Kings 12:31 alludes to the construction of a similar shrine at Bethel (Hammond).

2. Jeroboam made priests of all classes of the people (lit., from the ends of the people). He thus violated the divine scheme of things which restricted the priestly rights to the tribe of Levi (1 Kings 12:31). No doubt Jeroboam would have gladly retained the Levitical priests in that capacity had they been willing to serve. But they had refused to serve and had gone over to Rehoboam as a body (2 Chronicles 11:13-14).

3. Jeroboam ordered that a great religious festival be held on the fifteenth day of the eighth month. This was a deliberate imitation of the God-ordained Feast of Tabernacles held in Judah on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. The switch from the seventh to the eighth month would make this feast more convenient for the farmers in the North where the harvest or vintage was a month later than in Judah.[327] The fifteenth day was retained because in lunar months, the fifteenth was the day of the full moon.

[327] It is unlikely that Jeroboam altered the month of the harvest festival merely for the sake of creating a distinction between his religion and that of the South as maintained by Keil.

4. Jeroboam himself seems to have officiated in the sacrificial service at Bethel. It would seem that the harvest feast just mentioned was conducted only at Bethel.
5. Jeroboam stationed his newly ordained priests in Bethel. They are contemptuously referred to as priests of the high places (1 Kings 12:32). The omission of reference to the sanctuary at Dan is somewhat surprising. Probably the two shrines did not have equal status. While the sanctuary at Dan was estab lished for the convenience of those living in the far north, Bethel was regarded as the royal sanctuary (cf. Amos 7:13).

The audacity of Jeroboam’s ministering at the altar in person is underscored by repetition in 1 Kings 12:33. The king was probably motivated by the desire to invest the newly ordained feast with regal splendor and also by the idea of encouraging his new priests to enter on their unauthorized functions without fear. Previous history supplied concrete illustration of the dangers which attended the presumptuous assumption of priestly prerogatives (Leviticus 10; Numbers 16:40). The threats of the Law with respect to unlawful usurpation of priestly rights may have made Jeroboam’s priests hesitant. To allay their fears, the king undertook to offer the first sacrifices on the Bethel altar.

Every phase of the religion of the North was devised in Jeroboam’s own heart. Thus Jeroboam schemed to promote his own cause rather than the cause of God. In his religious innovations he went beyond God’s design for him as an instrument of divine judgment upon David’s house. Had Jeroboam trusted God and not tried to establish his own religion, God would have kept the promise made to him through Ahijah to give him an enduring dynasty.

The precise significance of the golden calves has been debated for years. At Mt. Sinai Aaron led the restless people in constructing a golden calf (Deuteronomy 32:4-8). Just why the calf figure was chosen is uncertain; but the bull appears in the art and religious texts throughout the ancient Near East. Some authorities believe that the calf symbol was borrowed from Egyptian religion. Several calf cults are attested in Egypt.[328] The calf or bull was the symbol of fertility in nature, and of physical strength. Other authorities link the Sinai calf with the cult of the moon god Sin whose worship was widespread in the ancient Near East. The shape of the animal’s horns apparently symbolized the crescent of the moon.[329] In near-by Canaan, the calf was the animal of Baal or Hadad, god of storm, fertility, and vegetation. The gods of Syria are frequently represented standing upon a bull or calf.

[328] Kitchen, NBD, p. 180. [329] Key, JBL, LXXIV (1965), pp. 20-26.

It is obvious that Jeroboam intended to link his calves to that Sinai calf. The expression, These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you out of the land of Egypt is common to both the present narrative and the Sinai account. But just what was the purpose, function, or theological explanation of these images?

Jeroboam’s effort could hardly have succeeded if the calves erected at Bethel and Dan had been understood to be images of Yahweh;[330] the effort would have been absurd if Jeroboam had introduced the worship of Hadad-Rimmon, the Syrian deity, in the form of a bull. Possibly the calves represented pedestals or thrones upon which the invisible Yahweh was understood to be enthroned.[331] In such a case, the calves had virtually the same theological significance as the ark and Cherubim in the Jerusalem Temple.[332]

[330] The Semites never represented their gods zoomorphically.

[331] W. F. Albright, FSAC, pp. 299-300. If Albright is correct in assuming that the Biblical Cherubim were winged bulls, then the correspondence with the bulls (calves) of Bethel and Dan would be even more striking. For a discussion of the appearance of the Cherubim, see comments on 1 Kings 6:23.

[332] According to 2 Kings 19:15, God dwelled between the Cherubim, the ark with its golden mercy seat apparently thought of as God’s earthly throne. See also Psalms 80:1; Psalms 99:1; Ezekiel 10:1.

Two negative results of the calf worship are attested in the history of Israel. First, the calf or bull was entirely too apt a symbol of fertility long to remain unrelated to the Canaanite fertility cult. The bulls at Bethel and Dan eventually led to syncretismthe adoption of pagan practices. Furthermore, the bulls could not long remain as a representation merely of Yahweh’s pedestal or throne; they eventually became identified with Yahweh Himself in popular religious understanding. For this reason Hosea regarded the calves as idols (Hosea 13:2).

SPECIAL NOTE THE SCHISM OF 931 B.C.

It is not the place of a commentator to indulge in lengthy historical analysis. Nonetheless, the schism of 931 B.C. is so important in the history of God’s people that a brief note of this nature is in order. Three points regarding the revolt of the ten tribes need further treatment: (1) the causes of the secession; (2) the consequences of the secession; and (3) the conditions after the secession.

I. THE CAUSES OF THE SCHISM

A superficial reading of Kings might lead to the altogether unwarranted conclusion that it was Rehoboam’s foolish decision at Shechem that led to the rebellion of the ten tribes. However, a careful scrutiny of the Biblical materials reveals that there were multiple causes for the division. These may be grouped under the following seven headings:

A. THEOLOGICAL FACTORS

The Scripture makes it clear that the schism of 931 B.C. did not catch God by surprise. The sacred historian declares that the rebellion was a turn of events from the Lord (1 Kings 12:15). Through the mouth of the prophet Shemaiah the Lord declared: This thing has come from Me. Thus it was the will of God that there be a division at this time among the tribes of His people. As part of His grand plan of redemption, God saw fit to keep Judah, the tribe of destiny, isolated as much as possible from the degradating influences of the Northern tribes. Furthermore, the division of 931 B.C. was an act of divine judgment upon the house of David for the idolatry and excesses of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 11:11-13; 1 Kings 11:33).

B. HISTORICAL FACTORS

As one reads the early Chapter s of the history of Israel, he can see the roots of the 931 B.C. schism. From the time of the Conquest, Ephraim constantly complained and created turmoil among the tribal confederacy. The Ephraimites complained to Joshua about their tribal allotment (Joshua 17:14), and to Gideon about not being included in the initial attack against Midian (Judges 8:1). Ephraim was involved in a civil war with the men of Gilead in the days of Jephthah (Judges 12:4). Ephraim gave allegiance to ill-fated bid of Ishbosheth to succeed his father Saul on the throne (2 Samuel 2:10). Further, the Northern tribes revealed their jealousy of and hostility toward Judah following David’s victory over Absalom (2 Samuel 19:41-43). Many men of the Northern tribes joined in Sheba’s rebellion against David (2 Samuel 20:2). From all of this it would appear there had always been an intense rivalry between Judah and the Northern tribes, particularly Ephraim.

C. GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS

C. F. Kent indicates the great importance of geographical factors in the schism of 931 B.C. when he writes: Thus that great schism between north and south. found its primal cause in the physical characteristics that distinguish the land of Judah from that of Samaria.[333] Kent refers to the geographical isolation of Judah and the mountainous character of the land which made effective communication between Jerusalem and the Northern cities very difficult. Judah was in effect a mountain fortress with natural barriers on all sides. Ephraim, on the other hand, stood exposed to every invader. The barrenness of Judah made that land unattractive to foreign invaders; the fertile hills of Ephraim beckoned the adventuresome plunderer. The commercial highways which skirted Judah ran through the heart of Ephraim. Kent feels these very different geographical environments produced two very different types of people. The inhabitants of Judah were for the most part sturdy, brave, intensely loyal and durable. The inhabitants of Ephraim, on the other hand, were luxury-loving, carefree, tolerant, eager for foreign ideas, cults and customs. Thus geography played a role in producing the schism of 931 B.C.

[333] Kent, BGH, p. 44.

D. POLITICAL FACTORS

It would be to the distinct advantage of Egypt to bring about division of Solomon’s empire. Solomon’s enemies Hadad and Jeroboam both took refuge in Egypt (1 Kings 11:17; 1 Kings 11:40). The fact that Pharaoh Shishak invaded Palestine shortly after the division of the kingdom (1 Kings 14:25) suggests that he had been working toward this goal behind the scenes.

E. RELIGIOUS FACTORS

The religious bond that held the various tribes together was weakened by the introduction of pagan forms of worship under Solomon. Furthermore, the role of the prophets in the schism must not be overlooked. The prophets, who played such a key role in the reigns of Saul and David, disappeared during the reign of Solomon. No doubt the prophets resented the introduction of paganism into Israel by Solomon as well as the encroachments on tribal prerogatives and individual liberties which characterized that reign. In Ahijah of Shiloh and Shemaiah of Jerusalem the prophets reappeared, but only as antagonists of the crown pronouncing prophetic judgment upon the house of David.

F. ECONOMIC FACTORS

The extravagance of Solomon and his ambitious building program, particularly in Jerusalem, resulted in heavy taxation and forced labor. The Northern tribes had no particular interest in the further beatification and enlargement of Jerusalem. It was from this burdensome tax load that the Northern tribes demanded relief from Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:4).

G. PETTY FACTORS

Finally, one cannot overlook the shrewd and ambitious leadership of Jeroboam, nor Rehoboam’s foolish handling of the confrontation at Shechem as factors contributing to the schism.

II. CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHISM

The schism of 931 B.C. had ramifications in three different areas: political, economic, and religious.

A. POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

The first and most obvious consequence of the 931 B.C. schism was the break-up of the Solomonic empire. Signs of decay were present even during the closing years of Solomon’s reign. Damascus seems to have been the first vassal state to throw off the yoke of Jerusalem. As a result of the 931 schism, Ammon and Moab in Transjordan broke away from Israel. In the southeast, Edom gained independence. In the southwest, the Philistines for the most part seem to have regained their freedom. The once mighty empire was so weakened that Pharaoh Shishak met little resistance when he invaded the land in 926 B.C.

B. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

Solomon’s wealth was derived mainly from his wide-ranging naval operations and from revenues derived from merchant caravans which traversed his land. With the schism of 931 B.C. the seaport at Ezion-geber was lost, and neither of the two miniature kingdoms was strong enough to control the major trade routes along the coast and in Transjordan. This lost revenue, plus the burden of now having to pay political bribes to foreign powers (1 Kings 14:26; 1 Kings 15:18), put a severe strain upon the economy of the two kingdoms. What little economic strength that was internally generated was dissipated in the forty or so years of intermittent warfare between Israel and Judah.

C. RELIGIOUS CONSEQUENCES

Growing directly out of the schism of 931 B.C. was the emergence of a counterfeit brand of Yahwism with shrines located in the North at Bethel and Dan. This watered-down version of revealed religion was not able to resist the energetic invasion of the worship of the Baal of Tyre in the days of Ahab. Furthermore, the state of hostilities between the two rival nations prevented thousands of people in the Northern Kingdom from attending the sacred festivals in Jerusalem. Many of the faithful in the North did emigrate to Judah. This population drain at one point became so severe that king Baasha attempted to blockade the main road to Jerusalem (1 Kings 15:17).

III. THE CONDITIONS AFTER THE SCHISM

Each new state had certain advantages and disadvantages after the disruption of 931 B.C.

A. THE ADVANTAGES OF ISRAEL OVER JUDAH

The Northern Kingdom had five times the territory and twice the population of Judah. Three popular and ancient sanctuaries (Bethel, Dan, and Gilgal) helped compensate for being cut off from the magnificent Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, Israel was a far more fertile and wealthy land than Judah. Throughout the parallel histories of the two kingdoms Israel was of much more political and military consequence than Judah could ever hope to be.[334]

[334] North, OTIH, p. 10.

B. THE ADVANTAGES OF JUDAH OVER ISRAEL

The advantages of Judah are five in number. First, Judah had a stable monarchy. Judah held unflinchingly to the succession of the house of David. Throughout the history of the Southern Kingdom, the throne passed on, for the most part without difficulty, to the king’s eldest son. In the Northern Kingdom there was no orderly arrangement for the succession of kings. A future king would be proclaimed by a prophet, and then he would await his opportunity to seize the throne. A second advantage lies in the fact that Judah had a royal city. Jerusalem remained the place of royal residence for kings of Judah until the end of that kingdom. Israel had no such city and the Northern capital moved from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah and finally to Samaria. Even after Omri built Samaria, other cities (e.g., Jezreel) seem to have served as secondary capitals. Thirdly, Judah had a genuine religious center and a magnificent Temple which contained the ancient sacred ark. That this was no small advantage is proved by Jeroboam’s determined effort to keep his subjects from making the trip southward to worship. From one point of view Judah’s geographical isolation may be counted as an advantage. Since none of the major highways passed through her, and since she was no great military prize, Judah was able to pursue her modest way of life for the most part without outside interference.[335]

[335] Ibid.

Finally, although Judah’s population was smaller than that of Israel, it was -more homogenous. Many Canaanite enclaves existed in the North; but those living in Judah were for the most part of pure Israelite stock.

THE KINGDOMS CONTRASTED

ISRAEL

JUDAH

Northern Kingdom

Southern Kingdom

Ten Tribes

Two Tribes

First King: Jeroboam

First King: Rehoboam

Capitals: Shechem, Samaria

Capital: Jerusalem

Worship: at Dan, Bethel, Samaria

Worship: Jerusalem

Nine dynasties

One dynasty

Nineteen kings

Nineteen kings and one queen

All bad kings

Good and bad kings

Shorter reigns

Longer reigns

Lasted about 210 years

Lasted about 344 years

Kingdom fell in 722 B.C.

Kingdom fell in 587 B.C.

Taken into Assyria by Shalmaneser-Sargon

Taken into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar

Longest Reign: Jeroboam II - 41 years

Longest Reign: Manasseh - 55 years

Shortest Reign: Zimri - 7 days

Shortest Reign: Jehoahaz - 3 months

Last King: Hoshea

Last King: Zedekiah