Rehoboam Loses His Kingdom, 1-24

This passage is paralleled in 2 Chronicles 10:1–11:4; and also in Josephus, Ant. viii.8.1–3.

It introduces the period of the divided kingdom (1 Kings 12 – 2 Kings 17:41; 931 – 722 BC).

Nelson comments that, structurally, this narrative is a developed story,

‘with exposition (vv. 1–3), complication (vv. 4–15), climax (v. 16), and denouement (vv. 17–20).’

The Northern Kingdom had willingly been ruled by David (2 Sam 5:1-3), and then by Solomon.  But they chafed under Rehoboam’s treatment of them, and favoured Jeroboam, a northerner, as their king.

Tony Evans explains the link with the previous chapter:

‘God’s judgment on Solomon was exacted during the reign of his son. The previous chapter explained the what and the why of what happened: the kingdom would be torn from Solomon’s son and divided in two because of Solomon’s unfaithfulness. This chapter explains the how. God used the bad advice Rehoboam received from his younger advisers and his foolishness in listening to carry out his promise.’

The previous chapter has already noted that that Jeroboam, a northerner:

‘was already a likely candidate to take Solomon’s place. His position as supervisor over a forced labor project (1 Kings 11:27-28) underscores why northern Israelites were tired of Solomon;s policies. They were drafted to work in the south, their tax burden was heavier than Judah’s, and their love for the Davidic dynasty was always tenuous at best. As H. Tadmor observes, the very fact that Rehoboam felt compelled to go to Shechem to speak to the northern tribes “is evidence of deep unrest and ferment among the people.” Only spiritual commitments could keep the nation united, and those commitments had already been weakened by Solomon.’ (NAC)

12:1 Rehoboam traveled to Shechem, for all Israel had gathered in Shechem to make Rehoboam king. 12:2  When Jeroboam son of Nebat heard the news, he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon and had been living ever since. 12:3 They sent for him, and Jeroboam and the whole Israelite assembly came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, 12:4 “Your father made us work too hard. Now if you lighten the demands he made and don’t make us work as hard, we will serve you.” 12:5 He said to them, “Go away for three days, then return to me.” So the people went away.

Rehoboam – Kingship, in the ANE, typically was passed down to the eldest son.  Of course, this does not guarantee competence, and the contrast between Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kings 3:16-28) and Rehoboam’s ineptitude is striking.

Merida: Proverbs has a royal dimension.  In the first nine chapters, a father (Solomon?) instructs his son about ruling wisely (Prov 8:15-17).  See also Prov 16:12-15; 21:3,15; 25; 31:9. The questions now are: will Rehoboam follow this counsel and rule wisely.  Will he surround himself with wise advisers or with foolish ones (Prov 13:20).  Will he seek to persuade with aggression, or with gentleness?

Barber: for all we know, Rehoboam grew up as a mere courtier without serious preparation for his role as king.  He was surrounded by young men who flattered and exploited him, offering nothing by way of wise counsel.  As a result, he completely misjudged the mood of the northern tribes.

However, in the early days of the kingdom succession was not always straightforward:

‘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 – lay in the northern hill country, 40 miles north of Jerusalem.  Near modern Nablus.  It had strong patriarchal connections, Gen 12:6–7; 33:18–20.

Rehoboam might have gone to Shechem – situated as it was in the territory of the northern tribes – with some caution.  Previous royal successions had been tumultuous.  As Lamb states:

‘After the death of Saul, his son, Ish-Bosheth, ruled over the tribes of Israel, but David reigned over the tribe of Judah (2 Sam 2:8–11), leading to a seven-year civil war between the north and south. After Ish-Bosheth was assassinated, the northern tribes made David their king and the monarchy was reunited under one ruler (5:1–5). David fought off two rebellions led by his own sons, as first Absalom attempted to seize his father’s throne (chs. 15–18) and then Adonijah declared himself king despite David’s wish that Solomon succeed him (1 Kgs 1). Solomon’s early reign was characterized by bloodshed as he killed several of his rivals, including David’s general Joab and his own brother Adonijah (ch. 2).’

But it seems likely that he went there assuming that his bid to be crowned as king was a mere formality.  He didn’t see the crisis coming.  And when it came he handled it with brash and almost suicidal stupidity.

All Israel had gathered in Shechem to make Rehoboam king – Just as David was first made king over Judah (2 Sam 2:4) and later over Israel (2 Sam 5:3), so Rehoboam had to be acclaimed king separately by the northern tribes.

Woodhouse notes:

‘So far in Israel’s history a king had never been imposed on the people by force. Even for a king who had been chosen by God, his reign began with the willing acceptance of him by the people (see Saul in 1 Samuel 10:24; 11:15; David in 2 Samuel 2:4; 5:3; Solomon in 1 Kings 1:39).2 It would be an exaggeration to call this “democratic,” but it is important to see that the kind of king God gave his people had never been a matter of raw power inflicted on an unwilling people.’

‘All Israel’ may refer to representatives from all twelve tribes.

But we, the readers, know more than Rehoboam knew:

‘We have heard God’s word that Solomon’s son will not reign over “all Israel” (in any sense), but only over “one tribe” (11:13, 36). We also know that the one who will reign over the rest of the people was a man named Jeroboam, the son of Nebat (11:31), who had been forced to flee to Egypt (11:40).’ (Woodhouse)

Jeroboam, newly returned from exile in Egypt, is chosen to speak on behalf of the northern tribes.  As a former taskmaster (1 Kings 11:28) he knows well the hardships imposed by forced labour.

“Your father made us work too hard” – The expression may refer to high taxation (1 Kings 4:22-28), for forced labour (1 Kings 5:13-18), or both.  On the other hand, their claim of hardship under Solomon may have been exaggerated.

Provan notes echoes of the Exodus story here.  The people are no longer set free to live in the Promised Land.  They are, like their ancestors in Egypt, in bondage and servitude.  Jeroboam takes the role of Moses, Rehoboam that of Pharaoh.  In response to the appeal of ‘Moses’, the oppression is increased.

Rehoboam’s father was, of course, Solomon.  This was the view of Jeroboam and the nothern tribes. However, it would seem from 2 Kings 11:40 that Jeroboam had already been plotting revolt, and this complaint may have an element of political propaganda as well as historical plausibility.

‘Conscripted labor is the major complaint. Northerners have been forced to build southern projects, a fact Jeroboam, the former taskmaster (1 Kgs 11:28), knows quite well.’ (NAC)

However, as Ryken notes:

‘Although 1 Kings describes Solomon’s building projects, and the people who built them, it never says that his rule was oppressive or that he held his own people in bondage. Furthermore, we should consider the source. Jeroboam is making a power play here, and thus trying to provoke a conflict, so of course he criticizes the old regime. Besides, when are laborers ever completely satisfied with their workload or their pay scale?’

“If you lighten the demands he made and don’t make us work as hard, we will serve you” – As Ryken notes, this sounds like the first move in negotiations between employer and a union representing employees.  They want better working conditions: higher pay, lower taxes, more holiday time.

Nelson:

‘Their deferential politeness contrasts sharply with the arrogance they suffer from the king.  They are suggesting the sort of concessions in taxes and labor obligations that were generally expected upon the accession of any new monarch.’

As Woodhouse remarks, what the people are asking for is promised by Jesus:

Matthew 11:28–30 — 28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry.”

“Go away for three days, then return to me” – On the surface, this seems a sensible move on the part of Rehoboam.  But he did not use the time wisely.

12:6 King Rehoboam consulted with the older advisers who had served his father Solomon when he had been alive. He asked them, “How do you advise me to answer these people?” 12:7 They said to him, “Today if you show a willingness to help these people and grant their request, they will be your servants from this time forward.” 12:8 But Rehoboam rejected their advice and consulted the young advisers who served him, with whom he had grown up. 12:9 He asked them, “How do you advise me to respond to these people who said to me, ‘Lessen the demands your father placed on us’?” 12:10 The young advisers with whom Rehoboam had grown up said to him, “Say this to these people who have said to you, ‘Your father made us work hard, but now lighten our burden.’ Say this to them: ‘I am a lot harsher than my father! 12:11 My father imposed heavy demands on you; I will make them even heavier. My father punished you with ordinary whips; I will punish you with whips that really sting your flesh.’ ”

King Rehoboam – The first time he is referred as ‘king’.  He was king in his own territory of Judah, but this had not yet been ratified by Israel.

The king consulted with the older advisers – Probably some of the officials mentioned in 1 Kings 4:1–19.  They would have served under Solomon, the wisest of kings.  They were worth listening to.  They advise him to agree to their condition.

The two groups of advisers differ in age, experience and loyalty.

“If you show a willingness to help these people…” – ‘If you will be a servant…they will be your servants’.

Ryken quotes Richard Phillips:

‘The old men counseled a course of godly humility, servant leadership, and moderation in his exercise of power.’

Ryken characterises the kind of leadership advocated here:

‘The king is the ruler and defender of his people. He is called by God to protect them from danger and provide for their needs. It is his responsibility to ensure that the citizens of his realm are well cared for, that they have the full opportunity to thrive in business, in culture, and in the life of the family. To that end, the king labors with all his might to give his people what they need to flourish.’

Note the words of Jesus:

Mark 10:43–45 — 43 Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The same kind of leadership is needed today, in family life, in church life, and in the work place:

‘Husbands and fathers are good servant-leaders when they pray for their wives, as well as care for the emotional and physical needs of their children. Pastors and elders are good servant-leaders when they bless the people in their churches with words of spiritual encouragement. Employers are good servant-leaders when they look after the total welfare of their employees, rather than simply looking at the bottom line. Servant-leaders devote every possible energy to blessing the people they are called to serve, even to the point of sacrificing their own safety and prosperity. This is true greatness in the kingdom of God, for as Jesus said, “whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Matt. 20:26). For the followers of Christ, the opportunity to lead is always a greater opportunity to serve.’ (Ryken)

Wiseman comments:

‘Authority and power exercised in service elicits loyalty. Jesus as Messiah the servant supremely illustrates this (Mark 10:43–45; Rom. 12:1). If Rehoboam had responded by showing a right understanding of authority, which aims to serve people and make them willing to serve together, the outcome could have been far different and the break-up of that unity which should characterize God’s people might never have happened. His indecision shows him unaware that immediate action (today) often influences life for ‘all the days’ (Heb. always).’

This is echoed by Olley (BST):

‘Paul’s exhortations on household relationships in the first century (wife-husband, child-parent, slave-master) are introduced by a phrase of mutuality, ‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ’ (Eph. 5:21). Christ himself “came not to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45), while in willing response we serve him “whose service is perfect freedom”‘

Rehoboam rejected their advice – How typical of someone in power to ask for advice and then to reject it when it’s not what he wanted to hear!

So he consulted the young advisers who served him, with whom he had grown up – The terminology emphasises their youth – ‘young boys’.  However, if they were contemporaries of Rehoboam, as the text suggests, they were not young in years (he himself would have been 42 years old, 1 Kings 14:21).  Their advice is naive, at best.

‘Like Rehoboam, they are young, ambitious, proud, and insecure. They tell him to intimidate the crowd by declaring that he is tougher than Solomon. Their theory is that servant leadership will not work. Only a bully can handle a diverse kingdom. As Nelson observes, “Rehoboam chooses slogans over wisdom, machismo over servanthood.”‘ (NAC)

Perhaps, as Brueggemann notes:

They ‘have never known anything but extravagant privilege and a heavy sense of their own entitlement.’

“How do you advise me to respond…?” – There may be a ‘we’ here (so Nelson and others), indicating where his sympathies already lie.  As Woodhouse notes, he wants them to write his speech.

As Lamb remarks:

‘While their language was base and demeaning, it was also creative and poetic, which is typical of both ancient and modern trash talking.’

‘I am a lot harsher than my father!’ – NIV: “My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist” – Lit. ‘my little one’. ‘Finger’ is a reasonable guess, but the reference may be somewhat coarser.

“Ordinary whips…whips that really sting your flesh” – The latter expression usually refers to scorpions, but can also mean barbed whips.

Their proposed answer is framed in terms of three aggressive slogans, one of which is sadistic (barbed whips) and another possibly obscene:

‘Rehoboam chooses slogans over wisdom, machismo over servanthood.’ (Nelson)

‘I am a lot harsher than my father! 12:11 My father imposed heavy demands on you; I will make them even heavier. My father punished you with ordinary whips; I will punish you with whips that really sting your flesh.’

The response is both ‘callous and inept’ (Harper’s Bible Commentary).  Tyranny and intimidation are recommended over servant leadership.

Woodhouse characterises the advice:

First, it was crude. This is camouflaged in our English versions, but “my little finger” is literally “my little thing” and in context is almost certainly a coarse reference to the male organ. With gutter humor they suggested Rehoboam flaunt his macho potency.

Second, it was arrogant. The young king, who had accomplished nothing, was to present himself as mightier than his father, whose greatness was internationally acclaimed (4:34; 10:6–9). The conceit is breathtaking.

Third, it was tyrannical. They had learned something of the discontent of the people at the burdens of Solomon’s reign. But whether justified or not, under Rehoboam they would have something to complain about! The speech is Pharaoh-like. You thought my father was harsh. I’ll show you what harsh is! “Scorpions” suggests “whips with barbed points like the point of a scorpion’s sting,” as well as having associations with the wilderness and thus the loss of God’s promised blessing.

Fourth,…it was utterly foolish.

(Emphasis added)

Leithart notes that, if they were contemporaries of Jeroboam, they would have been around the age of 40.  But:

‘Rehoboam’s advisors are “boys” who identify cruelty with leadership, who are flexing their political muscles for the first time, who think that the main thing that people need is a good dose of discipline. The boys would be perfect candidates for Hitler Youth, if only they weren’t so old.’

Ryken notes:

‘Never once does he turn to prayer or seek guidance from the word of God.’

12:12 Jeroboam and all the people reported to Rehoboam on the third day, just as the king had ordered when he said, “Return to me on the third day.” 12:13 The king responded to the people harshly. He rejected the advice of the older men 12:14 and followed the advice of the younger ones. He said, “My father imposed heavy demands on you; I will make them even heavier. My father punished you with ordinary whips; I will punish you with whips that really sting your flesh.” 12:15 The king refused to listen to the people, because the LORD was instigating this turn of events so that he might bring to pass the prophetic announcement he had made through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam son of Nebat.

He rejected the advice of the older men – ‘By rejecting the advice of the older men who have served Solomon, Rehoboam turns his back on the last repository of Solomon’s wisdom and embraced folly. The fate of the kingdom is sealed.’ (NBC)

The king refused to listen to the people, because the Lord was instigating this turn of events – See also Ex 4:21; 7:3-4; 7:13; 2 Sam 17:14; 1 Kings 11:31, 35, 37–38, 12:15

We might suppose that this ‘turn of events’ was due to human stupidity.  But here it is explained in terms of divine sovereignty; a ‘twist’ from the Lord’; a divine ‘cunning plan’, if you like:

‘This lack of judgment and its results, this “turn of events,” was “from the Lord” so that God’s word through Ahijah could come true. Nothing occurs here because of “chance.” There is no “chance.” God is sovereign. Still, Rehoboam’s decision is his own. The text maintains the tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility that pervades all of Scripture.’ (NAC)

Davis resolutely opposes any ‘moralizing’ of this text, such as launching into ‘the folly of refusing to listen to wiser, more experienced folks.’

But, insofar as the text lays bare just such human folly, we should not ignore or minimise this.

From a human point of view, then, the reason for the split is dissatisfaction over forced labour.  But:

‘God is also at work (vv. 15, 24; cf. 2 Sam. 17:5–14), however, to fulfill Ahijah’s threatening word of chapter 11 by an undoing of the future hoped for in 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25.’ (Nelson)

Ryken observes that we are once again faced with the mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (or, in this case, human stupidity).

As Wiseman comments, this view of history is taught consistently throughout the book, and, indeed, throughout Scripture.

See, especially:

Acts 2:23–24 — “This man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.  But God raised him up, having released him from the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held in its power.”

House:

‘Nothing occurs here because of “chance.” There is no “chance.” God is sovereign. Still, Rehoboam’s decision is his own. The text maintains the tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility that pervades all of Scripture.’ (NAC)

Leithart:

‘Yahweh turns Rehoboam’s power play against him. Instead of intimidating the northern tribes into submission, he drives them away; instead of gaining greater authority over Israel, he loses all authority over Israel. To the kind, David writes, Yahweh shows himself kind. To the blameless, he shows himself blameless. But to the crooked, he shows himself twisted (Ps. 18:25–26).’

The same writer says that there is ‘an even bigger twist’ here.  The whole of 1 – 2 Kings is dominated by the Lord’s determination to fulfill his promise to David.  He who is the son of Abraham, the son of David, will bring blessing to all nations and will restored the broken creation.  But the path will not be easy.  It will lead through death and division to resurrection and life.  If 1 -2 recapitulates the division and fall of the human race, then it looks forward to union and reconciliation.  Out of the ashes of Samaria and Jerusalem will emerge a restored Israel:

‘Jesus, the true Israel, reunites the nations in himself by offering himself to be torn and by entrusting himself to his Father, who raises the dead. God’s strange plan for salvation has been fulfilled in Jesus, and we are caught up in that plan as the new human race, the true Israel, gathered at his table to break and share bread.’

We should hesitate, therefore, to moralise about the perils of peer pressure and the need to listen to those older and wiser than ourselves:

‘The focus is on divine sovereignty not human stupidity. Don’t read this story, says the writer, and bemoan how headstrong youth seem to be or how older folks tend to be ignored.’ (Davis)

‘The term suggests the subtlety by which Yahweh’s sovereign design goes into effect. Nothing mechanical here. Yahweh’s sovereignty did not violate Rehoboam’s free decision; rather it came about through that freedom. Sovereignty seems so…natural. Here is Rehoboam, unsatisfied with the moderating, conciliatory stance of his father’s advisors, but his blood gets up when his peers do their wordsmithing. He likes the concepts they throw around, the new terminology they float: assertive leadership; power-rule; ultimatum. No doubts about it. That’s the way they should go. That’s what Rehoboam wants to do. Yet it was a twist from Yahweh.’ (Davis)

‘Is kingdom division a sad affair? Yes, but Yahweh had already predicted it and is here bringing his word to pass. Are Rohoboam and his favourites arrogant, cocky, and stupid? Probably. But v15 testifies that human hubris never catches Yahweh by surprise. He uses it. Big men (especially royal, arrogant ones) are simply little servants of Yahweh’s word. Contrary to our fears, human stupidity is not running loose but is on the leash of God’s sovereignty. I think that bears a relation to my sanity.’ (Davis)

God is sovereign, even when bad things happen:

‘These tragic events were from the Lord, part of his plan and design for the earthly kingdom of Israel so that the need and provision of God’s greater kingdom would be understood over time (vv. 15, 24). Even the bad things that happen in life, as terrible as they can be, always remain under the supervision and care of our covenant Lord. Trusting in God’s good providence sustains the believer in a life full of catastrophe and hardship.’ (Gospel Transformation Study Bible)

Merida:

‘In the middle of political and social chaos, we should remember that God sits in the heavens and does as He pleases (Ps 115:3). This should encourage all believers in general and those living under oppressive governments in particular. God will have the last word. God is in charge. We may not be able to answer all of the questions related to divine sovereignty, but that’s not the point. The point is, because God reigns supremely, we should humble ourselves before Him and trust Him. The book of Revelation makes this point in high definition for us. We know where the future is headed, and there’s only one who will sit on the throne!’

The prophetic announcement he had made through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam son of Nebat” – See 1 Kings 11:29-39.

Calvin wrestles with the conundrum of human responsibility verses divine sovereignty:

‘God, while he hates perfidy, yet righteously and with a different design decrees the defection. Let the reader diligently consider both these things, because it had pleased God that the people should be under the government of one king. Their division into two parts was contrary to his will, and yet from his will the schism first originated. (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

12:16 When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, the people answered the king, “We have no portion in David, no share in the son of Jesse! Return to your homes, O Israel! Now, look after your own dynasty, O David!” So Israel returned to their homes. 12:17 (Rehoboam continued to rule over the Israelites who lived in the cities of Judah.) 12:18 King Rehoboam sent Adoniram, the supervisor of the work crews, out after them, but all Israel stoned him to death. King Rehoboam managed to jump into his chariot and escape to Jerusalem. 12:19 So Israel has been in rebellion against the Davidic dynasty to this very day. 12:20 When all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they summoned him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel. No one except the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the Davidic dynasty.

If Rehoboam’s actions were characterised by obstinate stupidity, then Israel’s were, perhaps, marked by impulsiveness.

“We have no portion in David, no share in the son of Jesse! Return to your homes, O Israel! Now, look after your own dynasty, O David!” – Echoing the cry used by Israel in its failed attempt to rebel against David:

2 Samuel 20:1 – ‘Now a wicked man named Sheba son of Bicri, a Benjaminite, happened to be there. He blew the trumpet and said, “We have no share in David; we have no inheritance in this son of Jesse! Every man go home, O Israel!”’

In both cases, the essence is: ‘My your own business, David!’ (Nelson).  It is strangely anticipatory of the dismissive attitude of many to ‘great David’s greater Son’.

Woodhouse:

‘What may have begun as a reasonable petition made with due respect to the new king had been turned into defiant rebellion by the harsh arrogance of Rehoboam.’

Woodhouse:

‘They repudiated their place in David’s kingdom (“What portion do we have in David?”), denying that there was anything in it for them (“no inheritance”).’

With these words Israel cuts its ties with Judah.  No room is left for negotiation or reconciliation.  Bridges have been burnt.  Rehoboam’s attempts at diplomacy (v18) and then force (vv21-24) will fail.

Merida: Note the repeated emphasis on ‘David’ and ‘the house of David’.  Does the Davidic dynasty have a future?  But God’s promise of 2 Sam 7:16 asserts, and this means that, despite Rehoboam’s rebellion, the fracture of the kingdom and the idolatry of Jeroboam, God’s merciful promise can be glimpsed behind the clouds.  ‘A lamp in Jerusalem remains until the ultimate Son of David rules.’

So Israel returned to their homes – Ryken comments:

‘Back in chapter 8, when the Israelites celebrated Solomon’s temple with a feast, they all went home rejoicing, with words of praise for their king (1 Kings 8:66). This time they went home rebelling, with words of contempt for the king they refused to honor.’

Ryken comments that this was not only an act of secession, with Israel and Judah a house divided:

‘But Jeroboam and his tribes were also rebelling against the plan of salvation. God had promised a Savior-King to come from the house and the line of David. From that perspective, Jeroboam’s words to Rehoboam are chilling: “What portion do we have in David?” “We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.” “Look now to your own house, David.”’

King Rehoboam sent Adoniram, the supervisor of the work crews, out after them – Another ill-advised move on the part of Rehoboam, for this man had strictly applied forced labour.

King Rehoboam managed to jump into his chariot and escape to Jerusalem – Like most bullies, he is actually a coward.

This very day – This note indicates that this material was written, or edited, before the fall of Samaria and the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC (Wiseman).

Jeroboam had returned – from Egypt, to where he had fled under threat from Solomon, 1 Kings 11:26-40.

All Israel…made him king over all Israel – Provan insists that they intended to make Jeroboam ruler over all twelve tribes, even though, in the event, the two southern tribes would be ruled (illegitimately) by Rehoboam.

It is quicker, and easier, to destroy than to build.  As House (NAC) comments:

‘One incredibly poor decision tears down in a few days what David and Solomon labored eighty years to build. DeVries notes, “Possibly this passage’s most important lesson is how much easier it is to break up what belongs together than it is to restore what is broken.”’

And so we see the kingdom divided into two parts: Israel consisting of the northern ten tribes, and Judah in the south comprising Judah and Benjamin:

‘This fracture marks the beginning of the eventual loss of the land promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1-9), sought by Moses (Exod-Deut), conquered by Joshua (Josh 1-12), secured by David (2 Sam 5-24), and given peace by Solomon (1 Kings 1-10). Isaiah (10:20-23), Jeremiah (3:18; 31:9), Ezekiel (37:15-17), and Amos (9:11-15) looked forward to the time when a reunited Israel would once again serve the Lord after exile. Just as the division pointed to a time of disintegration and deserved punishment, so the nation’s restoration will signal God’s renewed promise of a holy land for a holy people. Certainly Ezra, Nehemiah, and the psalmists (e.g., 107; 126) read Israel’s return to the land in this way.’ (NAC)

The division of the kingdom is dated around 930 BC.

12:21 When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he summoned 180,000 skilled warriors from all of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to attack Israel and restore the kingdom to Rehoboam son of Solomon. 12:22 But God told Shemaiah the prophet, 12:23 “Say this to King Rehoboam son of Solomon of Judah, and to all Judah and Benjamin, as well as the rest of the people, 12:24 ‘The LORD says this: “Do not attack and make war with your brothers, the Israelites. Each of you go home, for I have caused this to happen.” ’ ” They obeyed the LORD and went home as the LORD had ordered them to do.

He summoned 180,000 skilled warriers – An improbably large number.  The LXX has 120,000, but this is still huge.  It may be a schematic number.  Alternatively, the word translated ‘thousand’ (’eleph) may mean ‘company’ or ‘division’.

Shemaiah the prophet – lit. ‘man of God’, a term used for Samuel (1 Sam 9:10–14), Elijah (1 Kgs 17:24), and Elisha (2 Kgs 5:8).

Lamb notes that there was a dearth of prophets in Solomon’s time, but was have already met Ahijah.

Spurgeon:

‘Some of you never heard of him before, perhaps you will never hear of him again; he appears once in this history, and then he vanishes; he comes, and he goes,—only fancy this one man constraining to peace a hundred and eighty thousand chosen men, warriors ready to fight against the house of Israel, by giving to them in very plain, unpolished words, the simple command of God.’

“Do not attack and make war with your brothers, the Israelites” – Leithart remarks that the Lord would continue to regard the northern kingdom as his covenant people (2 Kgs 13:22–25), notwithstanding their embrace of the religion of Baal and their attack of godly prophets.  Likewise:

‘All who are baptized wear the name of Jesus, and we should recognize them as fellow citizens of the church of Christ, yet this does not mean that the various churches can leave each other alone, overlooking genuine error or heteropraxy. Baptists and Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics are siblings, but it does not follow that each accepts the sins and errors of others. A sibling relation does not mean universal affirmation. Quite the contrary: siblings confront, albeit as siblings.’

“Each of you go home, for I have caused this to happen” – Another clear indication that behind the follies and fortunes of humans lies the sovereign hand of God:

‘The narrative thus weaves together the human and divine dimensions of the drama. Rehoboam had acted stupidly and followed bad advice, and Israel was in rebellion against the house of David (19); but the ultimate explanation is that Yahweh stood behind the scenes directing events. So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfil the word the LORD had spoken … (15). Human beings have the freedom to be obedient or disobedient, to act wisely or foolishly, but this freedom is contained within God’s sovereignty. In particular, the writer stresses many times that events announced by God through his prophets always come about.’ (NBC)

They obeyed the Lord – At last, the word of the Lord is heard and obeyed.

The division of the land was an act of God’s justice.  The prevention of all-out war was an act of his mercy.

Lamb remarks that, although we sometimes think of the God of the OT as a god of war, there are many texts where he promotes peace instead of conflict.  See 2 Kgs 6:20–23; Isa 2:4; 19:24–25; Jer 29:7.

But the peace would not last.  There would be continuous friction between the north and the south, 1 Kings 14:30; 15:6, 16.

Rehoboam’s folly:

‘If Solomon’s idolatry is the source of the kingdom’s division, Rehoboam’s folly is the immediate mechanism. Rehoboam’s folly is a characteristic folly of a “boy,” a young man who chooses advisors full of youthful pride, cockiness, and crudity, the type of companion against whom Proverbs warns repeatedly (13:20; 28:7; cf. Ps. 119:63). The contrast of youth and age is crucial, and Rehoboam’s story is a cautionary tale in an age intoxicated as ours is with youth and youth culture.’ (Leithart)

Jeroboam Makes Golden Calves, 25-32

12:25  Jeroboam built up Shechem in the Ephraimite hill country and lived there. From there he went out and built up Penuel. 12:26 Jeroboam then thought to himself: “Now the Davidic dynasty could regain the kingdom. 12:27 If these people go up to offer sacrifices in the LORD’s temple in Jerusalem, their loyalty could shift to their former master, King Rehoboam of Judah. They might kill me and return to King Rehoboam of Judah.” 12:28 After the king had consulted with his advisers, he made two golden calves. Then he said to the people, “It is too much trouble for you to go up to Jerusalem. Look, Israel, here are your gods who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 12:29 He put one in Bethel and the other in Dan. 12:30 This caused Israel to sin; the people went to Bethel and Dan to worship the calves.

Merida: This episode recollects the exodus and the events following.  A ‘new Moses’, Jeroboam, leads his people out from under the yoke of pharaoh-like Rehoboam.  But following deliverance comes worship of a golden calf.

The king…consulted with his advisers – Like Rehoboam, he seeks advice.  Like Rehoboam, the advice he acts on is foolish.

He made two golden calves – It is clear from the preceding verse that he established this form of idolatrous worship to protect his own kingship, rather than from sincere (if mistaken) piety.

Merida urges:

‘Many want to use God but not love God. How different are true followers of Jesus! A disciple finds the glory of God beautiful, while a vain, religious person only finds Him useful. To the latter person God isn’t ultimate. God is a means to that person’s own twisted end. Don’t be a merely religious person. Follow Jesus genuinely. Bow to Him whatever the cost. Love Him. Serve Him. Don’t play religious games. Will you die in your devotion to Christ or die in dead religion?’

In fact, Jeroboam does exactly the opposite of what God had commanded him to so in 1 Kings 11:38.

“Here are your gods” – Aaron had used the same language in connection with the golden calves at Sinai (Ex 32:4).

This caused Israel to sin – Violating the law (Lev 26:30; Num 33:52) by establishing high places and instituting idolatrous worship.

This was, in fact, one of the gravest sins in Israel’s history.  It is repeatedly condemned in the book of Kings (1 Kgs 15:30, 34; 16:2, 19, 26, 31).

As Lamb observes:

‘All the northern rulers except for two (Elah: 16:8; Shallum: 2 Kgs 15:13) were condemned for either walking in the sins of Jeroboam (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:19, 26, 31) or not departing from the sins of Jeroboam (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 14:24; 15:9, 18).’

Bethel and Dan – In the south and north of the kingdom, respectively.

The altar at Bethel was finally destroyed, by Josiah, some 300 years later (1 Kings 23:13).

What was so sinful about these ‘alternative’ places of worship?

Lamb replies:

First, Jeroboam’s act revealed that he does not trust the prophetic word from Ahijah that God would give him ten tribes and that, if he obeyed, his dynasty would be secure (1 Kgs 11:38).

Second, Jeroboam’s choice of these locations conflicted with Deuteronomy’s emphasis that YHWH would choose one central place of worship (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26).

Third, Jeroboam’s altars were associated with non-orthodox religious practices like high places, non-Levitical priests, and an alternative religious festival.

Fourth, and most shockingly, the construction of golden calves is the same sin that their ancestors committed in the wilderness.

(Paragraphing added)

12:31 He built temples on the high places and appointed as priests people who were not Levites. 12:32 Jeroboam inaugurated a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival celebrated in Judah. On the altar in Bethel he offered sacrifices to the calves he had made. In Bethel he also appointed priests for the high places he had made.

Jeroboam reigned in Israel from about 930–909 BC.  He set in chain a number of changes that spelt disaster for the northern kingdom.  In establishing religious centres at Bethel and Dan he ensured that his people would not travel to Jerusalem (in the south) to perform their religious duties.

Rehoboam and Jeroboam both failed as kings, but in different ways:

‘The heart of Rehoboam no longer desired to serve the people (vv. 7–8), and the heart of Jeroboam led the people back into the idolatry of the wilderness with the worship of golden calves (vv. 28–29).’ (Gospel Transformation Study Bible)

Nelson notes that Jeroboam has systematically and comprehensively violated the Deuteronomic law:

‘Non-centralized sacrifice (Deut. 12:5–7), image worship (Deut. 9:8–21 is especially in view); non-Levitical priests (Deut. 18:1–8); the Feast of Booths in the wrong month. The plural of verse 28 adds polytheism to the list of charges, as does the provision of two calves rather than one. The narrator insists that Jeroboam’s sacrifices were to these calves (v. 32) rather than to Yahweh, whom they certainly represented in some way. Even the generations-old institution of local high places is blamed on Jeroboam (v. 31).’

Indeed, idolatry was Jeroboam’s (and Israel’s) characteristic sin, 1 Kgs 15:26,34; 2 Kgs 17:20-23, leading to their ultimate downfall.

Although Nelson entertains doubts about the historicity of this narrative, the following comment is apposite:

‘Later reflections of the prophets (Amos, Hosea) make clear the theological dangers implicit in the liturgical traditions of the kingdom of Israel. The calves were all too open to misinterpretation by the unsophisticated. The plurality of shrines inevitably reflected the local multiplicity of Canaanite Baal worship, implying a Yahweh of Dan and another Yahweh at Bethel. As the Christian church itself has learned, liturgical forms are never without theological implication.’

A Prophet from Judah Visits Bethel, 33

12:33 On the fifteenth day of the eighth month (a date he had arbitrarily chosen) Jeroboam offered sacrifices on the altar he had made in Bethel. He inaugurated a festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to offer sacrifices.

(A date he had arbitrarily chosen) – Instituting the festival on his own terms, ignoring the calendar which was laid down by divine law.

Worship that is not in accord with God’s will is idolatry:

‘Though in appearance these tribes forsook only the posterity of David, they yet at the same time renounced the true and pure worship of God, and the religion that they followed under Jeroboam was spurious, for they ought to have offered sacrifices to God only in one place, for it is often found in the law. But they, having despised the place that God had appointed for himself, built altars elsewhere. Then their worship was nothing but superstition, and, though they multiplied sacrifices, they did nothing but provoke God’s wrath, for it is not lawful for us to devise anything beyond what is prescribed in the law.’ (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations)

For Calvin, the veneration of relics was idolatrous:

‘Alongside a satiric attack on the idolatrous veneration of relics, Calvin insisted that relics were spiritually destructive because they pointed sinners away from those designated sites where Christ had promised to make himself available—in the water, where God speaks his word, at the table, in the fellowship of saints.’ (Leithart)

Merida:

‘In our culture the foundational message for individual decision making seems to be “follow your heart.” But the Bible teaches otherwise. The message is “fear God” not “follow your heart.” Comedian Bill Murray quips, “I followed my heart, and it led me to the fridge.” Rehoboam and Jeroboam followed their sinful, selfish hearts, and it led them into idolatry and ruin.’

Nelson notes that this chapter might be read as a purely political story, the triumph of a liberation movement over oppression and tyranny.  But, suggests Nelson, beyond the political dimensions is a theological dimension.  For God’s sovereign will is being worked out in this scenario.  So:

‘Perhaps Christians who uncritically offer the church’s blessing to all liberation movements need to remember the rest of the story (vv. 21–32). Neither group dare forget that, in the final analysis, God’s sovereign will is being worked out in these historical struggles (v. 15).’

Preaching from 1 Kings 12

Consider the idea of ‘schism’ – breakup of marriages, families, companies, countries, churches.

Human responsibility and divine sovereignty.  Illustration of weaving: tangled from one side, perfect design from other side.