IN THE EIGHTEENTH YEAR of the reign of Jeroboam son of Nebat, Abijah became king of Judah, 2and he reigned in Jerusalem three years. His mother’s name was Maacah daughter of Abishalom.
3He committed all the sins his father had done before him; his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his forefather had been. 4Nevertheless, for David’s sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem by raising up a son to succeed him and by making Jerusalem strong. 5For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
6There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam throughout Abijah’s lifetime. 7As for the other events of Abijah’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? There was war between Abijah and Jeroboam. 8And Abijah rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David. And Asa his son succeeded him as king.
9In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa became king of Judah, 10and he reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years. His grandmother’s name was Maacah daughter of Abishalom.
11Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. 12He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. 13He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley. 14Although he did not remove the high places, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the LORD all his life. 15He brought into the temple of the LORD the silver and gold and the articles that he and his father had dedicated.
16There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel throughout their reigns. 17Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.
18Asa then took all the silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the LORD’s temple and of his own palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the king of Aram, who was ruling in Damascus. 19“Let there be a treaty between me and you,” he said, “as there was between my father and your father. See, I am sending you a gift of silver and gold. Now break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel so he will withdraw from me.”
20Ben-Hadad agreed with King Asa and sent the commanders of his forces against the towns of Israel. He conquered Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maacah and all Kinnereth in addition to Naphtali. 21When Baasha heard this, he stopped building Ramah and withdrew to Tirzah. 22Then King Asa issued an order to all Judah—no one was exempt—and they carried away from Ramah the stones and timber Baasha had been using there. With them King Asa built up Geba in Benjamin, and also Mizpah.
23As for all the other events of Asa’s reign, all his achievements, all he did and the cities he built, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? In his old age, however, his feet became diseased. 24Then Asa rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the city of his father David. And Jehoshaphat his son succeeded him as king.
25Nadab son of Jeroboam became king of Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah, and he reigned over Israel two years. 26He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, walking in the ways of his father and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit.
27Baasha son of Ahijah of the house of Issachar plotted against him, and he struck him down at Gibbethon, a Philistine town, while Nadab and all Israel were besieging it. 28Baasha killed Nadab in the third year of Asa king of Judah and succeeded him as king.
29As soon as he began to reign, he killed Jeroboam’s whole family. He did not leave Jeroboam anyone that breathed, but destroyed them all, according to the word of the LORD given through his servant Ahijah the Shilonite—30because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he provoked the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger.
31As for the other events of Nadab’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? 32There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel throughout their reigns.
33In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king of all Israel in Tirzah, and he reigned twenty-four years. 34He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, walking in the ways of Jeroboam and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit.
16:1Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha: 2“I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins. 3So I am about to consume Baasha and his house, and I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat. 4Dogs will eat those belonging to Baasha who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country.”
5As for the other events of Baasha’s reign, what he did and his achievements, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? 6Baasha rested with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah. And Elah his son succeeded him as king.
7Moreover, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Jehu son of Hanani to Baasha and his house, because of all the evil he had done in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger by the things he did, and becoming like the house of Jeroboam—and also because he destroyed it.
8In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah son of Baasha became king of Israel, and he reigned in Tirzah two years.
9Zimri, one of his officials, who had command of half his chariots, plotted against him. Elah was in Tirzah at the time, getting drunk in the home of Arza, the man in charge of the palace at Tirzah. 10Zimri came in, struck him down and killed him in the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah. Then he succeeded him as king.
11As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha’s whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. 12So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu—13because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they provoked the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger by their worthless idols.
14As for the other events of Elah’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
15In the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, Zimri reigned in Tirzah seven days. The army was encamped near Gibbethon, a Philistine town. 16When the Israelites in the camp heard that Zimri had plotted against the king and murdered him, they proclaimed Omri, the commander of the army, king over Israel that very day there in the camp. 17Then Omri and all the Israelites with him withdrew from Gibbethon and laid siege to Tirzah. 18When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal palace and set the palace on fire around him. So he died, 19because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD and walking in the ways of Jeroboam and in the sin he had committed and had caused Israel to commit.
20As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
21Then the people of Israel were split into two factions; half supported Tibni son of Ginath for king, and the other half supported Omri. 22But Omri’s followers proved stronger than those of Tibni son of Ginath. So Tibni died and Omri became king.
23In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years, six of them in Tirzah. 24He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver and built a city on the hill, calling it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of the hill.
25But Omri did evil in the eyes of the LORD and sinned more than all those before him. 26He walked in all the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat and in his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit, so that they provoked the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger by their worthless idols.
27As for the other events of Omri’s reign, what he did and the things he achieved, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? 28Omri rested with his fathers and was buried in Samaria. And Ahab his son succeeded him as king.
29In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab son of Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria over Israel twenty-two years. 30Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the LORD than any of those before him. 31He not only considered it trivial to commit the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, but he also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him. 32He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. 33Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to provoke the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger than did all the kings of Israel before him.
34In Ahab’s time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken by Joshua son of Nun.
Original Meaning
THE END OF the house of Jeroboam, as announced by the prophet Ahijah (14:10–12), comes with the conspiracy of Baasha (15:27–28). The failure of dynastic succession in the northern kingdom results in a series of conspiracies and civil war. The boundary between Israel and Judah is a contentious issue that results in continuous warfare (15:6–7, 16, 32). This pattern continues until the establishment of the dynasty of Omri. Omri brings stability to Israel and establishes an alliance with Judah, the smaller, more dependent state.
Politically Omri is a highly successful king. A daughter of Ahab, son of Omri, is married to the Judean king Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:16–18), who is the successor to Asa. Omri restores an active alliance with Tyre, reinforced by the marriage of his son Ahab to Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians (1 Kings 16:31). The wealth and influence of Tyre are significant; its colonies spread out as far as Spain and Africa. This results in great political strength, but it is spiritually disastrous, almost resulting in the extermination of the house of David in Judah (2 Kings 11:1–3). The spiritual conflict results in the struggles of Elijah and Elisha against the Baal fertility cult. These prophetic stories constitute a major section in Kings (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 8). The political achievements of Omri result in the Assyrians referring to Israel as “the land of Omri” for centuries, but knowledge of the God of Israel is almost lost.
The principal foreign power during this period is the Arameans. Rezon founded Aram-Damascus in the latter days of Solomon, making Damascus his capital (11:23–25). Rezon carries the meaning “high official” and may be the royal title of Hezion, father of Ben-Hadad, or these may be phonetic variants of the same name (15:18).1 Aram-Damascus benefit from the division of Israel (15:18–19). Asa appeals to Ben-Hadad, king of Aram-Damascus, for assistance in his war against Baasha. Ben-Hadad willingly obliges by invading Israel, so Asa is able to rebuild Ramah (about five miles north of Jerusalem) as a border fortress. The boundary is stabilized until the fall of Israel.
Conflict between Judah and Israel (15:1–24)
ABIJAM (HEBREW), MORE usually known as Abijah (some Hebrew manuscripts, the versions, and Chronicles), succeeds Rehoboam. Abijah is the more orthodox form of the name, which means “My father is Yahweh.”2 The eighteenth year of Jeroboam is given in Israelite nonaccession year reckoning (v. 1); in accession year reckoning of Judah, Rehoboam is said to have reigned only seventeen years (14:21). This is one of the many apparent contradictions of the synchronisms in Kings, indicating the authors retain the data as found in royal records. Ahijah has a short reign, from 913–910 B.C. (following the chronology outlined in Appendix B).
Abijah’s mother is Maacah daughter of Abishalom, understood to be a variation of Absalom (cf. 2 Chron. 11:20–23). Maacah may have been a foreigner (cf. 1 Kings 2:39), possibly of Aramean descent (Gen. 22:24), which may account for her idolatry (1 Kings 15:13).3 The Chronicler says the mother of Abijah is Micaiah (a scribal variant of the same name), daughter of Uriel (2 Chron. 13:2). Tamar is the only known daughter of Absalom (2 Sam. 14:27). If Uriel married Tamar, then Maacah would have been granddaughter of Absalom (NEB).4 The mother of Absalom is named Maacah (2 Sam. 3:3), as well as the mother of Asa (1 Kings 15:10), though Asa is son of Abijah, not a brother (v. 8). It is not possible to identify the mother of Abijah as daughter to Absalom the son of David. It is best to accept the information given, rather than to harmonize or assume contradictions. It is unlikely that Rehoboam would have married a daughter of Absalom, a cousin through his father’s older brother.
Kings condemns Abijah; he follows in the idolatry of Rehoboam. His territory is preserved only because Yahweh desires to keep the lamp of David preserved in Jerusalem (15:3–5; cf. 11:36; 2 Sam. 21:17). Abijah continues his father’s policy of war with Israel (1 Kings 15:6–7; cf. 14:30),5 but there is no acknowledgment of divine blessing on his reign. The Chronicler presents him in a more favorable manner (2 Chron. 13:1–20). His account of the war with Jeroboam is probably based on other sources independently preserved; it provides him with the information concerning Abijah’s decisive victory over Jeroboam.
The forty-one years of Asa are from 910–869 B.C. (15:9–10). He takes initiative against the male and female cult prostitutes serving at the country shrines and removes Maacah as the leading lady (vv. 12–13). Maacah holds the office of “queen mother” (v. 13), a position she continues to hold after the short reign of Abijah; more precisely, she is grandmother to Asa. The queen mother is the first lady of the realm, taking precedence over all the women of the harem (cf. 2:19; 11:19; 2 Kings 10:13). Normally she holds the office as long as she lives, and on her decease the title passes on to the mother of the heir apparent.
Official functions of the office of queen mother in Israelite monarchy are nowhere more specific than in 15:13. In Hittite practice the queen mother had both state and cultic functions and sometimes continued to exercise influence after the death of her husband.6 The patronage of Maacah to the Asherah cult may have been one aspect of fulfilling her court responsibilities to legitimizing the rule of the king, but this is speculative.7 Maacah may have been a woman with particular personality force and influence.
Asherah in the Bible is usually a pole, possibly a phallic symbol (cf. 2 Kings 23:4). She is well known from the Canaanite Ugaritic literature, where she is the wife of the supreme god El and the mother of seventy children, including Baal.8 At Ugarit her title is “the lady who treads the sea,” probably a coastal version of her Akkadian title “the lady of the steppe (plains).” In Canaanite mythology she is not to be confused with Ashtoreth (11:5), the goddess of war and sexuality. The queen mother has a shrine dedicated to this goddess, possibly located on the hill to the east of Jerusalem where Solomon located other foreign shrines (11:7). Asa has the object cut down and burned in a dumping ground in the Kidron Valley (cf. 2 Kings 23:6, 12). Though Asa is unable to remove the shrines, he is committed to the restoration of the temple treasuries (1 Kings 15:14–15). He was able to restore some of the artifacts of the temple through booty, which he and his father dedicate for temple use.
The war with Baasha brings the Arameans into conflict with Israel (15:16). Baasha apparently attempts to prevent Israelites from having contact with Asa by fortifying Ramah (v. 17). Ramah is located on the high road on the border of Ephraim, about five miles north of Jerusalem. This was probably the home of Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17). Asa takes whatever treasures Shishak has left and whatever he has managed to restore and sends them as a bribe to the Aramean king Ben-Hadad to attack Baasha. The mention of Asa’s father may indicate that Abijah has already made an agreement with Ben-Hadad (1 Kings 15:19).
Ben-Hadad (son of Hadad, the equivalent of the storm god Baal in Canaan)9 was a common name for Aramean kings. A ninth-century Aramean inscription to the god Melqart (the chief god of Tyre) names Barhadad (the Aramean equivalent of Ben-Hadad) as a king of Aram. The reading of the second line is uncertain, but it has been thought to refer to Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, who leads the Aramean armies against Israel.10 The Arameans are bitter enemies of Israel until the Assyrians destroy both in the last half of the eighth century.
Ben-Hadad is more than willing to accept money from both Baasha and Asa in their war against each other (15:19–20). The Aramean breaks his treaty and attacks northern Israel, capturing all the land of Naphtali. That means all Galilee is taken, almost all the country north of the Jezreel Valley and east of Lake Kinnereth.11 Ijon is a large village in the southern Beqaʿ Valley, on the southern border of modern Lebanon. It is usually listed together with Abel Beth Maacah, Dan (Laish), and Hazor in northern Israel. Abel Beth Maacah is located near a major waterfall of the Jordan tributaries, at the juncture of the Huleh Valley and the Beqaʿ Valley in Lebanon. ʿEn Gev on the eastern side of the lake is likely taken by the Arameans as well.12
The absence of Hazor from the list of cities taken by Ben-Hadad is remarkable, since it was the major fortified city of the area. Baasha may have been able to resist the Aramean army and retain the territory around Hazor. Ben-Hadad gains control over the corn land of the Hauran and the trade routes, which run to Tyre and Sidon and south to the plain of Jezreel. The northern attack forces Baasha to abandon his southern fortification.
After the withdrawal of Baasha, Asa conscripts workers to use the materials at Ramah to rebuild Geba and Mizpah. Mizpah is usually identified with Tell en-Nasbe, which is about four miles north of Ramah and about two miles from Bethel. Gebaʿ is likely located three miles beyond the watershed east of Gibeah, protecting a wadi13 leading down to Jericho and the sanctuary at Gilgal. According to the concluding formula, Asa fortifies other cities in Judah as well (15:23–24). His death from disease was regarded as an evidence of divine disfavor, a point developed at some length by the Chronicler (2 Chron. 16:7–12).
Civil War and Idolatry in Israel (15:25–16:34)
THE ONLY SON of Jeroboam to succeed him is Nadab, whose two-year reign according to nonaccession year reckoning of Israel is chronologically somewhat more than a year (909–908 B.C.). Baasha assassinates him while he is occupied with a siege at Gibbethon (15:25–31), a Levitical city belonging to the tribe of Dan (Josh. 19:44; 21:23). It appears in a list of cities conquered by Thutmose III (1468 B.C.) and again in a campaign of Sargon II against the kings of Ashdod (712–713). It was located in Philistine territory about three miles west of Gezer and probably served as a military post guarding the Israelite-Philistine frontier. It was under the control of the Philistines (16:15).
Baasha not only assassinates Nadab but also carries out a blood purge against the entire royal lineage of Jeroboam, fulfilling the judgment that Ahijah the prophet proclaimed against him. None of Jeroboam’s house receives an honorable burial, except for the sick child who died. The regnal summary of Nadab does not include burial in the royal cemetery.
The war between Baasha and Asa is discussed as part of the reign of Asa (15:17–21), so Baasha’s reign can be summarized with the synchronism and length of his reign (15:32–33) and a theological assessment (v. 34). His guilt lies in following the sins of Jeroboam; Jehu son of Hanani delivers the sentence. The Chronicler mentions Jehu the prophet in judgment against Jehoshaphat king of Judah about thirty-five years later (2 Chron. 19:2; 20:34), but nothing more is said about him.
The speech against Baasha (16:1–4) is given in the rhetoric found in the judgment against Jeroboam. Baasha is appointed as a leader over Israel (16:2; cf. 14:7), but causes Israel to sin and offends Yahweh (16:2; cf. 14:9). The threat to “consume Baasha” is an abbreviation of the threat to “burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung” (16:3; cf. 14:10). Exposure of the corpses is described in the same manner (16:4; cf. 14:11). Content of the prophetic speeches provides a conscious continuity between the house of Jeroboam and the house of Baasha. The regnal summary provided for the reign of Baasha includes the activity of Jehu the prophet (16:5–7), which makes explicit the parallel to Jeroboam.
The house of Baasha ends with the type of violence Baasha inflicted on the house of Jeroboam (16:8–14). Elah reigns for two years, like Nadab son of Jeroboam (886–885 B.C.). Zimri, an army commander responsible for half of the chariot force, murders Elah in a conspiracy. The conspiracy is facilitated by the drunkenness of Elah in the house of the administrator of the palace property. While half the army is occupied with the war in Gibbethon (16:15), Elah is dissipated in the capital at Tirzah. Arza is either complicit in the conspiracy or actively a part of it (16:9). All the potential heirs to the throne are killed (16:11; cf. 14:10). The judgment announced by the prophet Jehu is fulfilled, just as that announced by Abijah against Jeroboam (16:12–13; cf. 15:29–30). Elah dies because of false worship of “worthless idols,” meaning gods of no real existence (16:13).
Zimri is reckoned as one of the kings of Israel even though his reign only lasts seven days (v. 15). When Omri, the field commander in Gibbethon, hears the king has been killed, he has himself proclaimed king by the army. He marches to Tirzah and lays siege to the capital. When Zimri sees his cause is lost, he chooses death in the flames of the palace rather than execution by Omri. Foundations of unfinished structures have been found over the burned debris at the site (Tell el-Farʿah), possible evidence of the abandonment of Tirzah as the capital in Israel.14
Omri is unable to claim the kingship of Israel with the death of Zimri. Apparently some influential individuals of the royal court and the army there resist him. Tibni the son of Ginath makes a bid for the throne (16:21), so the country is divided for a period of about four years (cf. vv. 21–22). At the death of Tibni, Omri becomes the undisputed king. The death notice of Tibni is short; the LXX says that Joram his brother dies with him, suggesting Tibni comes to a violent end as well. Zimri is given the usual theological assessment for the Israelite kings (16:19) and concluding note about the records of his reign (v. 20).
The cause of the civil war is not given. Rival factions of the army may have been jostling for control in a volatile situation. Omri is not a common Israelite name, but it certainly is West Semitic (from the root ʿmr, “to reap” or “live long, develop”). It is possible Omri is an aggressive young general whom Tibni and his party attempt to prevent from taking over the throne. They fail, and with Omri a whole new era begins for Israel. The decimation that the Arameans have exacted in the attacks of Ben-Hadad (15:18–20), with the loss of trade routes through the Transjordan, will be reversed through the alliances forged by Omri. The civil war is over, and a lengthy new dynasty begins.
The twelve-year reign of Omri is shared with Tibni for the first five years (885–874 B.C.). Omri receives the briefest attention; his great deeds are mentioned in a general summarizing fashion (16:27), but that brief evaluation does not compare with the prominence attributed to him in other historical sources. The one achievement mentioned is the establishment of a new state capital, neutral to the warring factions within Israel (16:24). This is a strategic move, exchanging the eastward low hilltop of Tirzah for the westward high isolated hill of the tribe or community of Shemer (modern Sebastiyeh).
The biblical names for the site, Shamir (Judg. 10:1–2) or Shomeron (1 Kings 16:24), mean “watch” or “watchman.” “Samaria” is the Greek version for the name of the hill. Its summit reaches over 1,400 feet overlooking the main coastal road connecting Egypt and Judah with the Jezreel Valley15 and northern routes to Phoenicia and Damascus. Excavations on the western half of the summit have revealed much of the royal palace and a storeroom complex.16 Dozens of shipping documents record the transfer of commodities from the outlying villages to the capital during the later periods of the Israelite monarchy. Though the hill was occupied before Omri, the earlier buildings indicate the presence of a family estate producing oil and wine.
The twenty-two-year reign of Ahab ends with the battle at Qarqar (874–853 B.C.). His regnal summary occurs several chapters later (22:39–40), since the account of his reign is intertwined with the Elijah stories. Ahab extends the idolatry of Israel, making worship for the Baal cult exclusive. He builds a temple for Baal in Samaria and promotes the cult of Asherah (16:32–33). Alliance with the Phoenicians, with the marriage of Ahab to Jezebel, daughter of the Sidonian king (v. 31),17 facilitates the state promotion of the Baal cult.
Rebuilding Jericho, one of many cities Ahab restores, brings about the curse of Joshua (16:34; cf. 22:39; Josh. 6:26). It results in the death of the sons of Hiel of Bethel (otherwise unknown).18 Some argue here for a ritual of foundation sacrifices, in which infants were placed in jars and inserted into the masonry to propitiate the gods and ward off evil.19 More likely, however, the text means that during the building of Jericho his entire family dies because of the curse of Joshua. Specification of the eldest and youngest sons is a merism (“from oldest to youngest”), indicating the death of all the children of Ahiel. Laying the foundations is the first stage of building, and hanging the doors its completion.
Bridging Contexts
KINGS AND CHRONICLES. The historiographic intent of the Deuteronomistic authors is perspicacious in this section on internecine warfare. Idolatry is the curse that resulted in the exile of the nation. As good historians, they must be true to their sources as they find them in the archives of the kings. The complementary account in Chronicles provides quite a different perspective on the first rulers of Judah (2 Chron. 10–16). The account of Abijah leaves the impression that Rehoboam is an unsuccessful digression as a successor to Solomon. Rehoboam is humbled by Shishak (2 Chron. 12:7), but Abijah becomes the true descendant of Solomon. His speech to Jeroboam establishes two points: the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty and the purity of worship at Jerusalem (13:4–12). With the succession of a true Davidide, normalcy is restored. In Chronicles, Jerusalem and its kings continuously represent all Israel.
The first point is important in Kings, but the evidence for it after Solomon is found only in the survival of the dynasty as a divine concession to preserve a light for David (15:4). Worship at Jerusalem is somewhat corrected by good kings such as Asa, but specific mention is made of continuing worship at the high places (v. 14), as in the days of Solomon (3:2). Ahab’s constructing a temple for Baal in Samaria is not regarded as substantially different than Solomon’s erecting various shrines for worship to accommodate his foreign wives in Jerusalem. In Kings, substantial change in Judah does not come into effect until the purification of Josiah, and that is immediately ended by Manasseh, the worst of all the idolaters.
The positive picture of Abijah in Chronicles cannot be explained as a development from the account in Kings (2 Chron. 13:1–20). Chronicles tells of war with Jeroboam, in which the army of Judah is outflanked by the Israelites. Abijah addresses the people with a speech highly charged with devout faith. He appeals to Jeroboam not to fight against the true Davidide kings in Jerusalem; he further claims divine support because true worship of God is taking place at the temple in Jerusalem. His appeal is rejected, but Yahweh grants Judah miraculous victory. Abijah is able to take the territories surrounding Ephron, Bethel, and Jeshanah from Israel (13:19). These, together with Mount Zemaraim (13:4), form a coherent and logical geographical unit (cf. Josh. 18:22–23). All these are in the hill country on the northern border of Judah. The subsequent history of this territorial gain is not known; by the time of Amos (ca. 760 B.C.) Bethel is a major cult shrine in Israel.
The portrait of Abijah as a righteous king who fights and wins Yahweh’s battles and follows the covenant requirements to the letter must have been derived from an authentic source. Such a depiction posed certain tensions for the Chronicler’s own view of divine providence in dealing with kings. Righteousness is rewarded with success, which normally means a long rule. The long rule of a wicked king like Manasseh or the death of a just monarch like Josiah are both circumstances that required theological justification. The short rule of Abijah should have inclined the Chronicler to view Abijah with the judgment found in Kings; instead, he finds a king blessed by God with an impressive military victory over the forces of a superior army.
Japhet finds the Chronicler’s report of the results of the war tendentious. At the end of the war the Israelites are subdued, and Yahweh smites Jeroboam so he dies (15:18–20). The inference that Jeroboam dies before Abijah and other comparisons to Kings “remind us that the Chronicler’s literary procedure may entail—even in these extreme cases—not an entirely fictitious composition, but the reversal of a given source.”20 The Chronicler himself recognizes that the war with Jeroboam is not a subjugation of Israel, as he immediately reports the war between Asa and Baasha (16:1). The war does not bring Israel back under Davidic rule, but it does yield limited occupation of Benjamite territory on the border of Ephraim.
Jeroboam indeed outlives Abijah, but battle reports often include an account of the death of the defeated leader, so it seems appropriate to the Chronicler to mention Jeroboam’s death.21 Japhet acknowledges that the implications may be viewed from alternate perspectives; one may see limited results of what is intended as a major campaign against the northern kingdom and link this outcome with the untimely death of Abijah, or regard the limited military action as the historical event that is developed into a comprehensive confrontation between south and north.
In the Chronicles account, the achievements of Abijah have continuing influence for the reign of his son Asa: the land has peace ten years (2 Chron. 14:1). This statement provides a direct transition to Asa, so the usual introductory formula is omitted. This time of peace provides Asa with opportunity to refortify his cities (14:5–6); twice the Chronicler calls this divine rest—the term used in Kings for a redemptive state (cf. 1 Kings 5:18). The Chronicler further reports a rebuff of Zerah the Ethiopian on the southern border of Judah, in which Yahweh grants Asa a great victory and booty for Jerusalem (2 Chron. 14:9–15). The purification from idolatry is developed at considerable length under the inspiration of Azariah the son of Oded (15:1–19).
Chronicles returns to the Kings account to report the war with Baasha (2 Chron. 16:1–6), the only major event reported for Asa in Kings (1 Kings 15:17–22). Asa is censured for his reliance on the Arameans, through the prophetic word of Hanani; for his troubles, Asa throws Hanani into stocks (2 Chron. 16:7–10). Condemnation of Asa comes with the twice-repeated motif that the imprisonment is solely because of the king’s anger, not for any transgression of the prophet. Asa is judged with a disease in his feet, for which he fails to seek the Lord; as a result he dies from his illness (16:12–13). For all the achievements of Asa, he dies under divine discipline. For the Chronicler, Asa is a less exemplary king than Abijah.
The Chronicler has structured his account to show reward for faithfulness and judgment for rebellion. In Kings, the division of the kingdom and the ensuing warfare between the two nations is predominant, explained by idolatrous pursuits of subsequent kings. In Chronicles, the speech of Abijah introduces the implications of the division for the Davidic dynasty and the purity of worship at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 13:4–12). The Chronicler regards each generation as being responsible to God for its actions, without reference back to previous circumstances. The weakness of Rehoboam provides explanation for the division (13:7), allowing that this was an irregular circumstance. With the accession of Abijah, a true Davidide, normalcy is restored. The rule of Rehoboam over the city God has chosen is treated as a past event (12:13–14).
The northern kingdom is never given separate consideration in Chronicles. The Israelites live in the cities of Judah, with Rehoboam ruling over them (2 Chron. 10:16–17). “All Israel” in this context includes the north (cf. 10:1, 3, 18). In this way the Chronicler reconciles the tension of the division of the kingdom and the continued state of rebellion by the northerners.
This brief comparison of two accounts of the first kings of Judah shows both the importance of historiographic intent and the means used to achieve it. Both of these are essential to understanding the narrative and its lessons. Chronicles includes significantly more material on Abijah and Asa, perhaps not known to the Deuteronomistic writers. His use of terminology, the ordering of his material, and his evaluative judgments all serve to show that the legitimate rule of God and worship of God continue at Jerusalem and at no other place. This is accomplished in part by his use of the term Israel, which is inclusive of all the people of both kingdoms who are under the rule of the Davidide king and of all who find their true worship at Jerusalem. It is further accomplished by only recognizing the kings at Jerusalem as legitimate. The northern kingdom does not have its own independent story of how God deals with them.
The purposes of historiography are governed by circumstance. Chronicles was written in the last days of the Persian Empire, as is evident in the genealogy of Jehoiakim, which extends several generations beyond Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:17–24). The tiny province of Judah had little political influence within the vast reaches of the empire. The mighty Persian horses charged about, maintaining order for a government in distant Susa. It took a special vision to have any sense of the divine presence at work in the world (Zech. 1:7–17). The Chronicler has to establish that the promise of David was represented in the small struggling community of Judah. He does this by showing that the promise is never lost; all Israel is present when the kingdom divided, all Israel is present when the exiles regroup in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 9:3), and a son of David continues to serve as leader of the people. The quarrels of the divided kingdom are distant events that no longer have relevance. The nation long ago paid the ultimate price for its disobedience.
The Chronicler must provide hope for a people who have no political future, a hope that was originally given in terms of an eternal kingdom. That hope can only be established by a review of the past. For the Chronicler, that past is largely available in the book of Kings, but not only there. An account written to explain the destruction of Assyrians and Babylonians cannot provide hope for a sometimes-disillusioned people. The integrity of the original promise must be established. For the Chronicler, the glory of Solomon is possible if the formula of Solomon given in his prayer dedicating the temple is followed: Be humble, pray, seek God’s face, turn from your wicked ways, so God can heal (2 Chron. 7:14). The goal of the Chronicler in the story of each of the kings of Jerusalem is to show the efficacy of this principle.
Prophecy, fulfillment, and judgment. In the accounts of Kings and Chronicles, there is the consistent perspective that God is about the business of bringing his purposes to fruition. The book of Kings struggles with the division of the nation and the internal conflicts that represent God’s kingdom. God is seen to be actively at work in each of the capitals, in discipline and judgment, but with continued frustration of the covenant relationship.
Jehu son of Hanani rebukes Baasha for causing the people to sin, pointing out that God has raised him up from the dust (1 Kings 16:2). Like Jeroboam his predecessor, Baasha has no royal connections and is not entitled to the throne of Israel. He is the instrument of divine punishment against the house of Jeroboam, exterminating his dynasty as Ahijah has announced (15:27–30). As is so often the case in Israelite history, the aggressor, acting as a rod of judgment used by God, ends up being guilty of the same sins. Jehu pronounces against Baasha the same judgment he has executed against the house of Jeroboam (16:3–4; cf. 14:10–11). A concluding note on the message of Jehu the prophet censures Baasha for causing idolatry in Israel and exterminating the house of Jeroboam (16:7). The cycles of political vengeance are all part of divine judgment on rebellious and arrogant kings.
It seems contradictory to speak of Baasha as raised from the dust to carry out judgment, and then to rebuke him because he has carried out that judgment. Würthwein thinks that this is an instance of later reevaluation, as the actions of Jehu (2 Kings 10:7–11; cf. Hos. 1:4).22 Another suggestion is that this statement against Baasha is concessive; in spite of the destruction of the house of Jeroboam, Baasha has acted meritoriously in fulfilling God’s word through Ahijah.23 It is necessary to let the prophetic tensions stand; when an aggressor carries out a judgment announced by the prophets, that aggressor is not absolved of any crimes committed. Baasha acts out of his own interests, seen in how he leads Israel to sin, and one of his sins is the elimination of the house of Jeroboam.
The prophets never find it contradictory to hold wicked individuals responsible for their actions, even when God accomplishes his purposes through them. Peter in addressing the men of Israel on the day of Pentecost speaks in exactly the same terms as the condemnation of Baasha in Kings. The leaders in Jerusalem through their own wicked deeds have carried out the purpose of God in killing Jesus of Nazareth, a man they knew to be of God through the great deeds he did in their midst (Acts 2:22–23). For this act they are guilty, even though through it God overcomes the power of death and fulfills the promise he made to David (vv. 24–31). Human deeds are never regarded as a divine coercion. Humans act freely of their own volition for good or ill. In the prophetic viewpoint, all are responsible for the choices they make. At the same time, God never fails to accomplish his purpose, whatever may have been the human volition and intent.
Events in Israel must also be understood as part of international events. During the reign of Omri, Assyria entered a period of westward expansion. Within a decade after his accession, Ashurnasirpal II (882 B.C.) reached the Phoenician coast. Though he took tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos, Israel is not mentioned as a subject state. Omri not only stabilized the entire country of Ephraim, he made extensive conquests in Transjordan. The Moabite Stone says Omri controlled the territory east of Jordan as far south as Medeba.24 His conquests in Transjordan during the period of Assyrian westward expansion were a remarkable achievement.
Shalmaneser III (858–824 B.C.) overran the Aramean states between the Habur and Euphrates, including the well-known Bit-Adini, in the first years of his reign.25 This defeat served as an intimidating example of Assyrian power even 150 years later (2 Kings 19:12). Assyrian expansion brought Israel into coalition with their old enemy the Arameans; Ahab was present in the famous battle of Qarqar on the Orontes River in 853 B.C.26 Though Shalmaneser claimed an overwhelming victory, it is likely the confederates carried the day, as the same coalition appeared again in successive years. Israel and the Arameans repeatedly resume their old conflicts, with Ahab dying in his attempt to regain Ramoth Gilead (1 Kings 22). Ahab’s son Ahaziah dies within a year and is succeeded by another son Joram, named after the son of Jehoshaphat in Judah. It is probably during his reign that Samaria is besieged by Ben-Hadad II of Aram, producing conditions of cannibalism in the city (2 Kings 6:24–7:20). Joram was the last king of the Omride dynasty.
Though the establishment of the capital of Israel at Samaria is never declared to be the divine will and is not accomplished by a king subservient to the covenant, Samaria becomes an icon of political success. With the strategic location of the capital and the alliances with neighboring countries, Israel became a nation of considerable political force. The splendor of Samaria can still be seen in the ruins uncovered by archaeologists:
… the buildings of Samaria are of monumental character. Ashlar masonry was lavishly used in the various structures, and in particular the construction of the casemate walls with ashlar stones should be noted. At least some entrances to the monumental buildings had been decorated with stone-carved Proto-Ionic capitals mounted on pillars or pilasters, and several such capitals were uncovered in the excavations.27
Samaria was a grand capital, described as a crown at the head of a rich valley. It was a capital of decadence destined for destruction. The prophet Isaiah uses the fading flowers in the garland of its drunkards as a suitable metaphor for the dissolution of the city.
Woe to the proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim,
and to the fading flowers of his glorious beauty,
set on the head of a fertile valley
of those overcome by wine.
See, the Lord has one at his bidding
who is powerful and strong,
like a hailstorm, a destructive tempest,
like a storm of massive overflowing waters,
he will hurl it forcefully to the ground.
That crown, the pride of Ephraim’s drunkards,
will be trampled underfoot.
And the fading flower of his glorious beauty,
set on the head of the fertile valley,
will be like an early fig before the summer harvest;
whoever sees it devours it
as soon as it is in his hand. (Isa. 28:1–4)28
This prophetic tradition against Samaria is more than 150 years after Omri established it as the magnificent capital of a new kingdom. This invective likely had its origins in the decadent days of luxury and greed described by the prophet Amos. Its destruction came with the fierceness of a hailstorm; the city was swallowed the way an early fig would be swallowed by one passing by. The city of glorious beauty was trampled underfoot by invading armies. Those who lived in wealth, luxury, and dissipation in the grand capital could not have imagined such ignominy.
By the time Kings was composed, the glory of Israelite Samaria had long passed from living memory. Their only comment on the achievements of Omri was that “he did what was wrong, more than all those who had gone before him” (16:25–26). No more needed to be said about the proud achievements of Israel’s greatest kings. Though the kingdom of Israel ends in oblivion, there is a remnant within the kingdom of Israel that is very much a part of the kingdom of God. The prophet Isaiah has a further word for Samaria:
In that day the LORD of hosts will become
a crown of glory,
and a diadem of beauty for the remnant of his people,
and a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment,
and strength for those who turn back the battle at the gate. (Isa. 28:5–6)29
This word of promise, which seems to intrude on the word of warning directed against Samaria in this section of Isaiah (Isa. 28:1–13), has close connections to other passages of hope that speak about “that day” (e.g., 4:2–4). The Lord of hosts will be the crown of glory and diadem of beauty of the faithful remnant, not the capital city of a vain nation long forgotten. Yahweh will provide a spirit of justice (4:4; 28:6) that will characterize his holy mountain as a place of beauty and glory (4:2; 28:5). Though Jerusalem and Samaria will never share in a national glory like that of Solomon, the prophetic vision for the kingdom of God represented by his palace in Jerusalem remains undiminished.
The writers of Kings have to deal with exile. Their challenge is a crisis of faith that comes with loss of national identity. Their answer is in terms of the divine word: The circumstance of exile is not because God’s word had failed, but because it has been fully established. The postexilic prophets have the same message:
“But did not my words and my decrees, which I commanded my servants the prophets, overtake your forefathers?
“Then they repented and said, ‘The LORD Almighty has done to us what our ways and practices deserve, just as he determined to do.’” (Zech. 1:6–7)
Turmoil at the division of the kingdom continues to spiral toward complete dissolution of both nations. Politically the explanation is simple: Israel and Judah occupy the bridge between the mighty empires of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Their survival as independent entities is never viable. That is not the prophetic viewpoint. The history of Kings is written well; divine judgment and blessing operative in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel are no less significant for the present.
Contemporary Significance
MOST OF THE CHRISTIAN past involves conflict, like the history of Israel and Judah. This conflict goes back to the earliest times of the New Testament itself. The apostle Paul encounters intense conflict with the church at Corinth and avoids a further personal confrontation by writing a painful letter (2 Cor. 1:23–2:4). There are those who took satisfaction in the suffering and imprisonment of the apostle Paul and preached Christ with the goal of adding affliction to his imprisonment (Phil. 1:15–18).
As Christians look back on their past it is important to have clearly understood perspectives. Only then is it possible to understand the way in which the church struggles and fails in dealing with the forces of this age. It is then more possible to respect considerable divergences within the Christian faith. Above all, it is important to see how God continues to be at work accomplishing his purposes, sometimes through the deeds of wicked individuals who seek only to promote their own interests and sometimes through individuals willing to sacrifice their lives in doing the will of God on earth.
The church and political power. The absolute claims of the Christian faith must not lead to intolerance, but tolerance must not lead to compromise of the faith. This may be an impossible goal. Ernst Wilhelm Benz in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica describes Christianity as an intolerant religion, itself responsible for the conflict and persecution against it.
Christianity consistently practiced an intolerant attitude in its approach to Judaism and paganism as well as heresy in its own ranks. By practicing its intolerance vis-à-vis the Roman emperor cult, it thereby forced the Roman state, for its part, into intolerance.30
According to Benz, the mighty force of the Roman empire could not be tolerant of Christians who refused to bow to the emperor cult. “Early Christianity aimed at the elimination of paganism—the destruction of institutions, temples, tradition, and the order of life based upon it. After Christianity’s victory over Greco-Roman religions, it left only the ruins of paganism still remaining.”31 This view of the early Christian history is an admission that religions of human deification enforced by political power were no match for the simple power of the truth claims of the Christian gospel. The earliest Christian church had nothing more than the power of the Word to overcome the oppressive darkness of their world (John 1:1–5). The “forced” persecution of the Roman empire could not stop the light of the claims of Christ from being seen.
It is sadly true that Christianity became a religion of political power with vested interests in control. Exclusive claims for truth could not be separated from the power of the state. Benz again credits intolerance of religion as the cause of political wars within Christian countries.
When the Reformation churches asserted the exclusive claim of possessing the Christian truth, they tried to carry it out with the help of the political and military power at their disposal. In the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, Christian intolerance developed into an internal fratricidal struggle in which each side sought to annihilate the other party in the name of truth.32
In biblical terms, the church is not to be just another social-political force. It is to be the kingdom of God present amidst the kingdoms of humans. The power of the church over state in the Reformation period obscures this ideal. The religious wars of Europe are a dark period in the story of the kingdom of God.
Religious wars are a reminder that faith can never achieve its ends through political force. The problem is that political ambitions are not easily separated from religious issues, so political conflict over religion is the result. This was most evident in the intolerance of revolutionary groups of the Reformation period. The threats to the life of Martin Luther, the execution of radical Anabaptist reformers, the revolts led by the German radical reformer Thomas Müntzer, and the attempt of fanatical John of Leiden (Jan Beuckelson) to establish the New Jerusalem in the city of Münster are all examples of using political force to enforce truth claims on others.
This small sampling illustrates the tragic history of the Christian church in its failure to distinguish between the role of government to maintain peace and order between divergent groups and the responsibility to peacefully represent Christian truth against hostile forces. Religious wars did not arise because of the absolute claims of Christian faith, as Benz asserts; rather, religion was made a political matter. The conflicts of the Reformation were as political as those of Israel and Judah. Conflict between Israel and Judah, as well as civil war within Israel, was not caused by the absolute claims of the covenant, since none of the political leaders maintained the covenant requirement of exclusive worship of God. All claims of covenant allegiance were quickly subordinated to other political ambitions.
There are continuing lessons here for the Christian church. Each Reformation Day (October 31) all Christians should recall Luther’s intent in nailing his ninety-five theses to the Wittenburg church door on the eve of All Saints Day. He was responding to the sale of indulgences, the receipt of money for the forgiveness of sins. He was extending an invitation to debate a number of theological propositions. But debating these propositions had serious political implications. Indulgences served many useful purposes. Luther’s university at Wittenberg, even his own salary, was partly funded from the offerings of the pious who flocked to pray before the famous relic collection of Elector Frederick the Wise, displayed periodically in the Castle Church at Wittenberg. Though Luther was inviting theological debate, he was inadvertently stirring up a hornets’ nest of political interests.
It is the responsibility of churches to maintain the integrity of their own faith confessions. This is not intolerance, since those who do not share these confessions are not expected to have membership within the group. This is a separate question from tolerance in relation to a larger society. Christians should not expect the state to conform to their values and cannot expect that laws of state will always support their values.
A greater tension arises when the state proposes legislation that is explicitly contrary to Christian values or ethical convictions. If Christians are compelled by law to participate in an activity contrary to their convictions, like the Christians in the time of the Roman empire, they will have no choice but to obey God rather than government. To lay blame for such disobedience as Christian intolerance is itself a manifestation of intolerance of minorities that is inimical to democratic ideals. The viewpoint of Benz is completely undemocratic and intolerant.
Israel and Judah could not survive as political entities. They did survive as entities of faith, present in a small way in the days of Chronicles and still present when the mighty Roman empire enforced its own version of peace on the entire Western world. It emerged in the followers of the Way, who found the man Jesus to be the fulfillment of the promise to David. It became a force that eventually transformed a pagan Greco-Roman culture, as Benz describes it.
Conflict and war following the division of the Israelite kingdom show the difficulty of integrating faith and powers of state. Under the covenant, civil and religious authorities were to be separate; kings were not to function as temple officials, and prophets could challenge the conduct of kings. However, the Deuteronomistic Historians did not envision a pluralistic state tolerant of other faiths. The covenant specified that certain groups could not be part of the state, such as the indigenous nations of Canaan and individuals supporting their religious practices (Deut. 7:1–6; 18:9–13). The covenant commitment of Israel was not sufficient to bring about homogeneity of faith in God, much to the anguish of the historical writers. Quest for power invariably brought dissension and violence, undermining the ideal of a nation living in obedience to God.
The new covenant of the church was of a different order; in the vision of Jeremiah, its power would be in a transformation of mind, and for this reason would succeed where the old covenant failed (Jer. 31:33–34). The church was not to be a state power but an expression of faith within the pluralism of many faiths. People of faith may be profitably involved in political power, but in a pluralistic society the function of political control is to maintain order in the midst of a divergence of worldviews. The power of faith is its ability to change the lives of individuals; its goal is not to control them.
Chronicles is in this respect a most helpful complement to Kings in understanding the history of faith. While Kings focuses on the conflict and failure of the political, Chronicles focuses on the perspective of the divine kingdom. There is a continuity of faith in the people the Chronicler called “Israel” who survived the Exile and the end of the nation. Though politically powerless, they represent the hope of David, the possibility a theocratic kingdom. The church represents the continuity of doing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven, in a sometimes-difficult dialectic with the political forces around it.
The church and conflict. The church will always need to deal with conflict in its institutional life. The great battles of the church for truth are sobering reminders of the inevitability of conflict. In writing to the churches of Asia the apostle John gave stern warnings to deal with those who threatened the church from within and an exhortation not to fear those without. Pergamum had to deal with the “throne of Satan,” which involved the “teaching of Balaam” and the doctrines of the “Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:13–15). They paid a high price; Antipas, the faithful witness (martyr) paid the ultimate price for being faithful to the truth.
Battles against Gnosticism in the second century, the establishment of orthodoxy about the incarnation Christ, and the ecclesiastical conflicts of the Reformation are all examples of the dangers of false religion. In the New Testament, the response of the church is never to defend itself with the powers of state. Instead, it is the example that shows the limitations of state power. In his Revelation, John sees a great number from every tribe, tongue, and nation surrounding the throne of God, giving praise to his power forever (Rev. 7:9–12). Those suffering in great tribulation in the kingdoms of this world gain their victory as members of a kingdom that transcends earthly kingdoms.
A great tragedy in the story of the church is its attempt to be a political kingdom in this world. An even greater tragedy is the church’s attacks against itself. Days like those of the Reformation period are unlikely to return; Christians have recognized that power of a faith group over state is a source of great trouble and conflict. But this has not removed the problem of open conflict within the church, most especially within particular congregations. It is most tragic when the disputes of believers are much more trivial than political power and have no concern with even minor points in church doctrine. Most church disputes are over personalities and church culture. Susan Lang uses the metaphor of a ship at sea to describe the voyage of a congregation:
As the crew of the good ship Our Congregation plots the course of ministry together, they have high hopes for smooth sailing. The ship sails out of the docks and begins its journey of worshiping, witnessing and learning together. The seas are calm and spirits are high.
Then someone suggests a small change. What about introducing a new worship book? Or, even more dramatic, a contemporary worship service to draw in a younger crowd? Suddenly the seas begin to churn. The boat starts to rock.
Other ideas surface, such as major renovations to a sanctuary that has never been changed in its 150-year history. Someone else suggests moving the altar so the pastor can face the congregation while presiding over communion. The waves swell and begin to crash on the deck.
Passionate disagreements about what should be done occur. Thick, dark clouds appear. Visibility decreases and it’s impossible to see where the ship is headed. The leadership fears it is caught in a maelstrom of conflict and will sink. Perhaps all is lost.33
Michael Smith (a pseudonym) is a chaplain and history teacher at a private secondary school. Of the myriad of problems in the church receiving media attention, from membership losses to sexual abuse, a hidden crisis lurks in the proliferation of congregational conflicts. Local churches, denominational officials, and clergy perpetuate the problem by being loathe to acknowledge it. The former find ignoring it easier than dealing with it, the latter want to avoid professional stigma. The problem is congregational conflicts in which the pastor is the target.
Particularly in the so-called free churches, in which decisions to hire and fire clergy rest with the members and not with denominational officials, clergy are vulnerable to assault by small but committed factions of critics. I am referring not to situations in which a pastor’s poor performance or scandalous behavior has ignited a controversy, but to conflicts that arise from unhealthy congregational dynamics, and that target pastors who are innocent of malfeasance and are usually caught unawares.
It is impossible to say how common this kind of conflict is, or how many clergy have become casualties. One denomination that offers some statistics, the Southern Baptist Convention, reported that during an 18-month period ending in 1989, some 2,100 pastors were fired—a 31 percent increase since 1984. Other denominations are less forthright, but my own experience of a bitter church fight and its surprising aftermath suggests that the SBC’s figures are a good indication of what is happening in many denominations.34
“Smith” suggests that one of the reasons for such conflict lies within the nature of the congregations; they have become clubs, sociological fellowships rather than theological communities. A club is closed, exclusive, and inward looking; it can be the friendliest of places and put on the best potluck dinners, but the congregation-as-club is essentially concerned with past and present friendship circles.
Richard Kaufman recognizes that the church is often embattled and dysfunctional, but it is still where God chooses to meet us:
Sometimes you have to suffer as much from the church as you do for it, said Flannery O’Connor. Some of my friends share her sentiment. Caught in the crossfire of church conflict, they considered giving up on the church entirely. Bruised and abused, they wondered, is it worth all the hassle? And they asked me, “Church, who needs it?”
“I gave up my faith in the church a long time ago, even though I still believe in it.” I told them that my faith isn’t ultimately in the church. “That is misplaced faith, idolatry. My faith is in God. But I still believe in the church because it is central to what God is doing in the world—forming a reconciled and reconciling people who are a light to the nations.”35
The people of faith have never had a Golden Era. The Old Testament is a continuous story of conflict and failure, not only between kings as heads of idolatrous states, but conflict between prophet and prophet. The New Testament would be a much smaller volume if all the passages dealing with church conflict were excised. Some of Paul’s letters would virtually disappear. In terms of conflict, the New Testament church is remarkably modern. Kaufman provides a reminder of both the church’s significance and function:
The church is a common community with an uncommon cause. The foundation of our corporate life is what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. We have been brought into being by the utterly unique and gratuitous act of God’s reconciling work in Jesus Christ. By this act, God has forgiven our sins and welcomed us into his family. And the very act that brought the church into being should be what characterizes the life of the church. Our life should be marked by forgiveness, reconciliation, and by welcoming people into God’s family. Perhaps that is why we get so discouraged over conflict.36
Christian faith holds promise of reconciliation for some of the world’s greatest conflicts. South Africa, Cambodia, and Rwanda are examples where this is happening. Justice is not possible in situations of terror and genocide. Justice is restoration of what has been lost; lives lost in the atrocities of terror and genocide cannot be restored. In such extreme cases, many of the individuals involved in such atrocities are not dangerous; they were caught up in circumstances much bigger than they could manage. The past cannot be undone; the present must be restored. Forgiveness and reconciliation are the only hope for such countries.
The church has had a most significant role in teaching forgiveness that can reconcile families torn asunder by violence. In the examples of South Africa, Cambodia, and Rwanda, virtually every family has members who were lost through terrorist violence and members who were a part of committing those terrorist acts. Forgiveness and reconciliation are the only possibility for the restoration of those communities. The Truth and Reconciliation hearings of Bishop Desmond Tutu are legendary. These are also part of the church’s story.
There is a tendency among some to regard religion and racism as the cause of all conflict. Such a charge is an utter dearth of creativity. Religion is universal and inescapable; those who call themselves nonreligious are only oblivious to the religion they live and espouse or to the narrow definition they have given to religion. It is as inevitable as having race, language, and culture. Every conflict in some respect involves religion as a part of the circumstances. The universality of both conflict and religion does not establish a causal relationship between the two; both are inseparable aspects of the human condition.
In writing about human conflict of the past, it is important to have a clearly articulated historiography. This aspect of history writing is exemplary in both Kings and Chronicles. Their circumstances, presuppositions, and goals for writing are translucent. The reader is unable to know how historical material has been selected, but it is clear how it was used. Such method gives historical data a context from which it can be assessed and appropriate lessons learned. Christians must write their own story, with all its conflicts, with clarity of conviction and viewpoint. It may appear as one unmitigated tale of conflict, but it may also be the one story that holds out hope for resolution in a world continuously in conflict.