Your Kingdom is torn by a Bootleg Religion of Selfishness, not Love. Kingdom Crud (1 Kings 12:1–24) Last summer several of our family traveled through the Dakotas. There I came upon a tourist’s blurb telling how smallpox once devastated the Mandan Indians. In 1837 an epidemic broke out among the white traders on the boat St. Peters. While the boat was docked at Fort Clark a chief stole a blanket from an infected deck hand. Officers tried to obtain the blanket by offering a new one but the chief refused. He insisted on keeping ‘his’ blanket. In about three days the Mandans began to get sick. Things progressed until hundreds were dying each day. Some of them preferred suicide. When all was over, only thirty Mandans remained of a tribe once numbering 1,700. All because a blanket was stolen. The situation in 1 Kings 12 is like that. Huge repercussions came from what might have appeared minor matters—a political discussion and a press conference. Pig-headedness split a kingdom. One can imagine with some reason that Rehoboam looked on the Shechem assembly as largely a formality. He must not have recognized a crisis when he saw it: even after the first waves of revolt he sent Adoram on his fatal mission (v. 18). One supposes even Rehoboam wouldn’t have done that had he really been clued in to the true state of affairs. The narrative is easy to follow. There are two major sections (vv. 1–15 and 16–24), each of these ending on the same theological note (vv. 15, 24). One could set it out like this: Assembly (vv. 1–15) Appeal to the king, 1–5 Consultation with advisors, 6–11 Declaration to the people, 12–14 Explanation of the event, 15 Aftermath (vv. 16–24) Rebellion, 16–20 Restraint, 21–24 Stupidity under the Sovereignty of God (vv. 1–15) This is an interesting episode in spite of the fact that it’s a political story. There is ferment for change among the northern tribes. They make their confirmation of Rehoboam’s kingship contingent upon his granting concessions—he must give relief from the harsh policies of the previous regime. Solomon’s measures had been too severe (v. 4).1 Rehoboam wants time to confer with his advisors; on the third day he’ll announce his decision (vv. 5, 12). The story of the double consultation (vv. 6–11) is fascinating. It takes only two verses to relate Rehoboam’s query and the advice of the older men (vv. 6–7). They counsel that a little restraint ‘today’ (v. 7a) will win the dissidents’ allegiance ‘all the days’ (lit., v. 7b). In short, concessions will conquer complaints. But the writer immediately gives you a news reporter’s scoop: ‘Now he forsook the counsel of the older men’ (v. 8a). So you already know where Rehoboam’s head is and where his mouth will go. Rehoboam gives himself away when he consults the younger fellows who grew up with him: ‘What do you advise that we [note the first person plural] return as an answer to this people?’ (v. 9). The king’s ‘we’ shows with whom he identifies. These younger bucks believe that nothing impresses like intimidation, nothing tames like threatening. So they give Rehoboam a memorable one-liner to use: ‘My little one is thicker than my father’s waist’ (v. 10b).2 In case that baffled anyone they furnished an addendum (v. 11): ‘My father imposed a heavy yoke on you, and I will add to your yoke; my father flogged you with whips, but I will flog you with scorpions’ (NJPS).3 That is relatively clear. In their view this is no time to give the proverbial inch but to impose the royal weight. They would have agreed with James I’s instruction to his son, that God had made the young prince ‘a little God to sit on his throne, and to rule over other men.’4 The rest is history. Oh, the writer doesn’t tell you what the people did until verse 16, but as soon as you hear the surly, heavy-handed announcement in verses 13–14, you know the glue has gone out of the kingdom. One almost instinctively wants to moralize this text. One could launch into the folly of refusing to listen to wiser, more experienced folks. One could gather proof texts from Proverbs. Or, at a bit of a stretch perhaps, we could carry on about the ‘perils of peer pressure’ and harangue youth over that. But the text forbids you. You are not free to make anything you want out of this story because the text itself explains why what happened happened. In verse 15 the writer gives you the lens through which you are to view this episode: And the king did not listen to the people, for it was a circumstance coming from Yahweh, in order that he might make his word stand, which Yahweh had spoken by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite, with reference to Jeroboam son of Nebat. 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. Let’s say one morning you tell a friend what happened at home the night before: ‘I went into the kitchen and saw a zebra washing dishes at the sink!’ As you speak the words, will you stress ‘kitchen,’ ‘dishes,’ or ‘sink?’ Would that really be proper? Doesn’t ‘zebra’ stand out (one might say, in black and white)? Shouldn’t the emphasis fall on that strange culinary assistant? So with biblical narrative. When a writer so much as says, ‘Now here’s what you need to understand about this story,’ or, ‘Here’s the explanation behind this whole event,’ we should pay primary attention to his emphasis—if we want to get it right. What does verse 15 tell us? It tells us the end Yahweh had in mind in this whole affair: ‘in order that he might make his word stand, which Yahweh had spoken by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite.’ The text refers to the prophecy of Ahijah in 11:31–39, that, among other things, ten tribes would be given to Jeroboam; the text underscores the certainty of the word of God. What happened at Shechem that day happened because Yahweh wanted to make his previous word come to pass. That’s the end. What about the means? How did he bring it about? It was a ‘circumstance coming from Yahweh.’ ‘Circumstance’ is sibbāh, a term used only here (cf. 2 Chron. 10:15), though the root occurs often. Versions frequently translate it as a ‘turn of affairs.’ That’s good. Or one might simply say ‘a twist from Yahweh.’ In any case, 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.5 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 doubt about it. That’s the way they should go. That’s what Rehoboam wants to do. Yet it was a twist from Yahweh. This story filtered through verse 15 should prove a massive encouragement to Christ’s flock. Is kingdom division a sad affair? Yes, but Yahweh had already predicted it and is here bringing his word to pass. Are Rehoboam and his favorites arrogant, cocky, and stupid? Probably. But verse 15 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. Tragedy in view of the Promise of God (vv. 16–20) Rehoboam’s stupidity was not an episode; it was a pattern. Perhaps ‘stupidity’ is too strong. In any case, Rehoboam repeatedly gets it wrong. First, he accepts and spouts surly and arrogant counsel (vv. 1–15, esp. 8, 13). Second, still suffering from royal density, Rehoboam sends Adoram on a northern mission, apparently to show that the king meant to ‘walk the talk’ (cf. v. 14) and to impose forced labor on (some) northern subjects.6 No one was going to push Rehoboam around. Adoram, however, met with a rocky—and fatal—reception (v. 18b). Third, after Rehoboam came to his wits and had hightailed it back to Judah (v. 18c), he amassed his troops to attack Israel and force them into submission (v. 21). The prophet Shemaiah stamped this scheme as wrong-headed (vv. 22–24). Even though stupidity is under sovereignty (v. 15) it is still sad. And verses 16–20 highlight that sadness. Note the four-fold ‘David’ references. The rebels ask their rhetorical question (‘What portion do we have in David?,’ v. 16a)7 and offer their defiant advice (‘Take care of your own house, David,’ v. 16b). The narrator summarizes that ‘Israel has revolted against the house of David until this day’ (v. 19) and reminds us that ‘no one went after the house of David except the tribe of Judah alone’ (v. 20). The repeated mention of David and the house of David cannot help but dredge up the memory of 2 Samuel 7, the Davidic covenant passage, where Yahweh had assured David You will always have descendants, and I will make your kingdom last forever. Your dynasty will never end (v. 16, TEV).8 There is nothing that can overthrow the Davidic covenant, nothing that can falsify the Davidic promise, nothing that can prevent the certain coming of the greater (messianic) David (cf. Hosea 3:5; Ezek. 34:23–24). What a grand covenant with David and his seed! The good news is that Rehoboam cannot nullify it; the bad news is that he can besmirch it. He cannot destroy the covenant, but he can derail it. So, under Rehoboam, instead of seeing the Davidic covenant exemplified, we see it eclipsed; we find it mangled rather than modeled. Colonel Bonner Fellers, military secretary to General MacArthur, has left a sobering account of the events leading up to Japan’s surrender in 1945. Emperor Hirohito and prime minister Suzuki were desperately trying to work out arrangements for Japan’s surrender early in 1945. The emperor could not communicate directly with the United States because the militarists controlled all the communications. He tried to contact the Allies through the Soviet government, but the Soviets proved strangely cool to the matter and would either delay or give no response. All the time Japan was withering; she suffered 185,000 casualties in a B-29 attack on Tokyo. Then came August 6 and 9. Atomic bombs. Then the strangely silent Soviets spoke up and declared war on Japan. Fellers claimed that the facts show indisputably that the U.S.S.R. repeatedly smothered Japanese overtures for peace with the Allies for six months before Japan’s surrender. The U.S.S.R. was determined to obtain a dominant position in the Orient, both territorial and political, and therefore planned to enter the war at a time most favorable to Russia’s interest.9 Japan’s defeat was not in doubt at that point; her surrender would have to come. The emperor knew it. Yet here is another ‘if only’ of history that casts a sad shadow. What destruction might have been prevented, how many lives might have been spared. So with Rehoboam. He can in no way dissolve Yahweh’s David Plan, but he certainly demeans it—and that’s sad. Neither can any of us prevent God’s kingdom from coming in power and great glory but we can tarnish its luster today by our folly and faithlessness. And that’s sad. Humility before the Word of God (vv. 21–24) Back in Jerusalem, Rehoboam, still operating in knee-jerk mode, re-institutes the draft and calls up the troops ‘to fight with the house of Israel to bring back the kingdom to Rehoboam son of Solomon’ (v. 21). He feels forced to use force. However, the word of God comes to put a stop to Rehoboam’s words and plans, a word coming through Shemaiah: Here’s what Yahweh says, ‘You are not to go up and you are not to fight with your brothers, the sons of Israel; Return, each man to his house, for this affair has come from me’ (v. 24a).10 I find the response mildly amazing: ‘And they listened to the word of Yahweh, and they turned to go away, according to the word of Yahweh’ (v. 24b). It was Rehoboam’s first wise move in the whole chapter. One must confess the divine initiative here. Yahweh intervenes with his word to cut off Rehoboam’s further folly. That is clearly a footprint of grace.11 And yet one must also acknowledge that Rehoboam and Judah have gained wisdom here: they listened to the word of Yahweh. I am so used to the prophets’ scoring Israel or Judah for not heeding Yahweh’s word that this little notice rather surprises me. Yet here they submit. Yahweh insists this whole affair is his doing. And both king and militia give it up. Sometimes it is right to give it up. After William Jennings Bryan’s third defeat (in as many bids) for the U. S. presidency, he would tell the story of the fellow (apparently under the influence) who tried three times to get into a private club and was thrown downstairs each time. When he landed on the street after his third attempt, he picked himself up, dusted off his clothes, and said reflectively, ‘They can’t fool me. Those fellows don’t want me in there!’12 Is that perhaps a proper point of counsel from verses 21–24 for Christ’s people? Are there some times when we should acquiesce to our mucked up circumstances or resign ourselves to the hard providences Yahweh has imposed? That is not a welcome word to contemporary men and women, at least in the west. For some reason we think there must be some way to ‘fix’ everything, a Band-aid for every dilemma. But most sinful and thoughtful believers know that sometimes their choices, their folly, their bullheadedness or their hard-heartedness have landed them in a network of circumstances they simply cannot undo. Their lives are riddled with gaping cracks that can’t be caulked or with irreversible consequences that can’t be righted. What can one do but listen to the word of Yahweh at that point and go on living in the kingdom as grace enables to do so? Is that mere weakness or is it finally wisdom? Davis, D. R. (2002). 1 Kings: The Wisdom and the Folly (pp. 125–133). Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications.
Posted on: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:03:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015