It appears that toward the end, Senmut/Solomon had a change of heart and returned to Israel leaving Egypt and his queen behind.

And so the reign of Solomon () neared its end. Jeroboam had found safety in Egypt.

"Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon." 1.Kings 11:40.

The reason King Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam was that his falling away from the divine blueprint had caused him (Solomon) to do injustices which angered the people who had found a ready spokesman in Jeroboam. In revised view Solomon died in 930 and Queen-Pharaoh Hatshepsut in 926 BC. Until then and because Hatshepsut and Solomon were fast friends, the later Thutmose III was powerless to take action. But he had already begun to raise himself a pupet king in Israel and indoctrinate Jeroboam with his attitudes and plans. If Solomon was Senenmut, we find perhaps a clue here that the influence Solomon/Senmut still had in Egypt with Hatshepsut dictated Thutmose's wait and see attitude.

The Three Adversaries of Solomon

For some time Solomon's policies had created him three adversaries.

1. Hadad the Edomite, 1.Kings 11:14
   In the time of David, Hadad, then still a child, fled from Edom into Egypt and later married into the pharaoh's family just like Solomon had married an Egyptian princess. After the death of David he returned to Edom located at the southern end of the Dead Sea. One of its more sizeable towns was Tannur. When Solomon built the harbor at Ezion Geber the Edomites were temporarily pacified but later Hadad began to cause unrest. All of these rulers were now related to the house of Egypt by marriage and Hadad having spent there his youth, he was obviously supported by the Egyptian crown in his efforts to cause unrest. His life and education was a blueprint for the life of Jeroboam.

2. Another adversary of Solomon was Rezon, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, became a captain of a band and ruled now in Damascus.
   
   These two legacies of the Amalekite Empire, Arabia and Syria, turned away from the House of David and even the land of the 12 tribes was divided before Solomon closed his eyes.

3. The third adversary was Jeroboam the Ephraimite, a subject and servant of Solomon, whom he had made `ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph'. But secretly Jeroboam harbored ambitions of making Ephraim an independent state. Solomon, becoming aware of this, sought to kill him. Jeroboam, however, found safety in Egypt where he married princess `Ano'.
   
   "And Susakim (Shishak, ) gave to Jeroboam to be his wife Ano, the eldest sister of Thelkemina, his own wife. She was great among the daughters of the king and she bore to Jeroboam Abijah." [50]
   Where Susakim is Shishak;
   Ieroboam is Jeroboam;
   Ano is princess Ano, wife of Jeroboam;
   Tekeminas is Thelkemina;
   basileos means king;
   Abia is Abijah;
   Aiguptou means Egypt;
   Sarira in Ephraim are the fortifications;

This information is important because it gives us the name of the queen's sister. The Bible confirms that Jeroboam received a wife in Egypt the way Hadad did just one generation earlier, 1.Kings 11:19. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York there is preserved a canopic jar bearing the name of princess Ano. [60] The jar's style has been dated to the time of Thutmose III. We are currently awaiting reply from the Met after having been in contact for the whereabouts of this jar. But after about 6 weeks waiting we still have no reply. Apparently this jar has been misplaced for they don't seem to know where it is currently. We must remember that the item number is over 50 years old and a lot has changed in the way museums display their treasures since then. Here then we have an added indication that, indeed, Thutmose III was Shishak and it was he who encouraged the conspiracies of the enemies of Solomon. Once Thutmose III became pharaoh he wasted no time but invaded the kingdom of his old arch enemy.

The many years of Pharaoh Thutmose III had finally come to an end in about BC. It was the time of King Asa (910-869) in Judah, Nadab (rev. ca. 909) and Tibni (rev. ca. 909-896) in Israel, Adad-nerari II (911-891) in Assyria and Rezon and then Ben-Hadad I in Damascus. What happened next in Judah was determined by events of the last 30 years in the region. King Asa could see the handwriting on the wall when the end of the era of Thutmose approached. He knew that the new king of Egypt in the south and of Israel in the north might once again be a danger to his land and people. In anticipation of that he fortified his borders with Israel and Egypt and trained his army. One of the places he fortified was `Mizpah' which is situated between Israel and Judah. There he built a thick wall of formidable stones using timber, a sloping revetment, a retaining wall and a moat.

But the scriptures state Asa to have trusted the God of Israel more than the strength of arms. His protective measures are an indirect witness to the fact that Israel had experienced a devastating invasion of its cities with the loss of the nations resources and substance he did not want to see repeated. And we recall how Zerah invaded Israel, 2.Chr, 14:9-15. Therefore, chronologically speaking it was a pharaoh mightier than any of those of the 22nd Dynasty who did this deed.

Zerah the Invader

The account of the invasion of Zerah in the realm of Judah under King Asa, occupies a prominent part and must have a historical basis. What could it be?

The description of the battle of Mareshah or Moresheth reveals why the pharaoh turned his back speedily on Palestine and his face toward Egypt, why his army carried away only "one bow and two horses", and why the population of the cities, presumably in Edomite southern Palestine, plotted against his garrisons.

You can read the intriguing revised account here.

Conversly on the other side of the fence in Israel, one of the first actions during Jeroboam's 22 year reign (1Ki. 14:20) was to fortify his land and built places of worship for his people without which he knew, he could not pacify their deep yearning for a spiritual life, 1.Kings 12:26-33. While Rehoboam in Judah continued the foolish, hard time policies of Solomon and in the process alienated the people from himself, Thutmose III invaded Jerusalem and carried all its spoils over the next few years to Egypt. During all this time Jeroboam (ca. 930-909 BC) staked out locations for fortifications along the border with Judah to protect his domain for generations to come. [100] The construction of these fortresses begun around 920 BC we find references to them in various texts helping us to strengthen the chronology of this period.

A Mother's Influence on Chronological Interdependencies

Of particular interest is that Jeroboam named the border fortresses after his mother whose name was Sarira (King James `Zeruah') according to 1.Kings 11:26:

"And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon's servant, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand against the king."

We find the name Edom-Serirot in the `Poem of Keret' phonetically matching `Sarira' which is another welcome chronological anchor.

"Go a day and two days / A third one and a fourth one, / A fifth one and a sixth one, And on the seventh day you will meet Sapasites. / And you shall come to Edom Rabbim / And to Edom Serirot / Then he met the Sapasites / And went to Edom Rabbot / And to Edom Serirot. / Don't combat Edom Rabbot / Nor Edom Serirot, / Depart, king of Sidon / O, Keret, from my parvis." [150]

In summation we have several points which leads us to conclude that the 18th Dynasty belongs into the time of the early Israelite kings:

1. The enigmatic king who aided Ahmose against the Hyksos and spoken of as the `One' finds its identity in King Saul.

2. The Queen of Sheba visit we explained already.

3. The invasion of Palestine and the looting of the Jerusalem Temple by Shishak/Thutmose III is also attested to in Ras Shamra texts.

4. The `Poem of Keret' , the invasion by Amenhotep II or his general, the Bible and Septuagint help us in finding out the reason for the naming of Jeroboam's border fortresses as Serirot/Sarira.

5. The letters of the so-called El Amarna Period belonging, as they do, into the time from Ahab [Labaya] to his sons.

The borders of Israel reached much further to the north then historians believe for there are indications Jeroboam was one of the first to build in Baalbek were some of the (offline) huge stones witness to that fact.

Here is the story.

The ambitious servant was not satisfied with this honor of administering the land of Menashe (Manasse) and Ephraim, or even the entire northern half of the kingdom; he wished to be a king himself. From the viewpoint of serving his own ends, it was a sound idea to build on some ancient sites places for folk gathering which would compete with Jerusalem. Whereupon the king [Jeroboam] took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto [his people]. It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem . . . And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan. Beth-El was in the south of his kingdom, close to Jerusalem, Dan in the north of his kingdom. In order to attract pilgrims from the land of Judah, Jeroboam also made Beth-El the site of a new feast, "like unto the feast that is in Judah." 1.Kings 12:32,33. Setting up the image of the cult in Dan, Jeroboam proclaimed: "Behold thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." 1.Kings 12:28. Thus, Dan in the north competed with Jerusalem in the days of Passover and Tabernacles. The temple of Dan was a much larger edifice than the temple in Bethel, and it became a great place for pilgrimage, attracting people even from the southern kingdom.

"And this thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one [of the two calves], even unto Dan. 1. Kings 12:30. The temple of Dan was called a "House of High Places" : "And he made an house of high places . . ." 1.Kings 12:31. The Temple of Jerusalem was also called a "House" in Hebrew. For centuries the temple of Dan in the north successfully contested with the Temple of Jerusalem, and attracted throngs of pilgrims. Jeroboam, the man who supervised under Solomon the building of Millo, the fortress of Zion with its strong wall, and who, in recognition of his ability demonstrated in this work, was appointed governor of the northern provinces, now, when king, must have desired to erect in Dan a temple surpassing the magnificent Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Only in offering a more imposing building could he hope not only to turn the people from going to Jerusalem, but make the people of Judah elect a pilgrimage to Dan over one to Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Jeroboam had seen the temples and palaces of Egypt, and his ambition was, of course, to imitate all the splendor he had seen in Jerusalem, in Karnak, and in Deir el-Bahari. Or would this "mighty man of valor", industrious constructor of Zion's citadel, and a shrewd politician, try to contest the Temple of Jerusalem by means of an ignoble chapel? That he succeeded in his challenge is a testimony to the size and importance of the temple at Dan. Interestingly enough almost 1500 years later emperor Constantin after having moved his capital to Byzantium, the later Constantinopal, planned on making his new capital known for a new house of worship more magnificent in grandeur than either the Jerusalem temples or those in Rome. The result was the splendid `Sofia Hagia'. So we see this attitude of erecting competitive centers of worship was alive and well throughout history.

It was not enough that Dan and Beth-El were ancient places of reverence: magnificence was displayed in the capital of Solomon, and magnificence had to prevail in the temple cities of the Northern Kingdom.

The temple of Beth-El, the smaller of the two Israelite temples, was demolished three centuries later by King Josiah, a few decades before the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. It was trampled into smithereens by the king, jealous for God. 2.Kings 23: 15. There is no mention of a destruction of the temple in Dan. Where was Dan and its "House of High Places" ?

THE SEARCH FOR DAN

Dan was the northernmost point of the Israelite settlement where one of the twelve tribes chose its domicile. A familiar expression was: "From Dan even to Beer-Sheba." Judges 20:1; 1.Samuel 3:20. Students of biblical geography have agreed to place Dan in the Arab village of el-Kadi, on the upper flow of the Jordan, which is there but a rivulet. In recent years very insignificant ancient ruins have been found on this place. [200]

The biblical Dan is placed on the upper flow of the Jordan because of a passage in Flavius Josephus. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus says that Dan was on "a spot not far from Mount Libanus and the sources of the lesser Jordan". [240]

Commentators on Josephus deduced that by the "lesser Jordan" the upper flow of the Jordan, above the Lake of Huleh, or above the Lake of Tiberias, is meant; however, this interpretation is not supported by the words "not far from Mount Libanus" since, from the surroundings of el-Kadi and the sources of the Jordan, the snow-capped Hermon or Anti-Lebanon can be seen in the distance, but not Lebanon, far behind the Anti-Lebanon.

After having chosen the source of the Jordan as the area where to look for Dan, this ancient city was located at el-Kadi for the following reason: the name Dan is built of the Hebrew root that signifies "to counsel" or "to judge". El-Kadi means in Arabic "the judge". There was no other reason, beside this philological equation of Hebrew and Arabic terms, to locate the site of the ancient temple city in the small village of el-Kadi, since—until quite recently—no ruins, large or small, were found on the site.

The aforementioned reference in Josephus makes one wonder whether by "the lesser Jordan" the river Litani was meant. This river begins in the valley between Mount Lebanon and Mount Anti-Lebanon, flows to the south in the same rift in which farther to the south the Jordan flows, and towards the source of that river, but changes its course and flows then westwards and empties itself into the Mediterranean. Its source being near Mount Lebanon, it appears that the Litani was meant by "the lesser Jordan".

However, Josephus, who wrote in the first century of the Christian era, was not necessarily well-informed concerning the location of Dan - the temple city of the Northern Kingdom - a state whose history ended with the capture of Samaria by Sargon II in -722. [300]

Therefore, it is only proper to go back to the Scriptures in trying to locate Dan.

THE PORTION OF THE CHILDREN OF DAN

When the Israelites, after the Exodus from Egypt, roamed in the wilderness, they sent scouts to Canaan to investigate the land and to report. The scouts passed the land through its length "from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath." Numbers 13:21. These were also destined to be the southern and northern borders of the land: "Your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin" and in the north "your border [shall be] unto the entrance of Hamath." Numbers 34:3,7-8.

The expressions "as men come to Hamath," or "unto the entrance of Hamath" signify that Rehob, the northern point of the land visited by the scouts, was at a place where the road began that led to the city of Hamath in Syria.

In the days of conquest under Joshua son of Nun, when the land was partitioned by lot, the tribe of Dan received its portion in the hilly country on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa. The tribe was opposed by the Philistines, also invading the same country. When the population of Philistia increased through the arrival of new immigrants from the Mediterranean islands, the tribe of Dan, being the advance guard of the Israelites, had to suffer not mere resistance, but strong counter-pressure. The Samson saga reflects this struggle. Tired of continuously opposing the increasing influx of the Philistines, the Danites migrated to the north. They . . . came unto Laish, unto a people who were quiet and secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no business with any man; and it was in the valley that lieth by Beth-Rehob. And they built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called the name of the city Dan . . . howbeit, the name of the city was Laish at the first. Judges 18:27-29.

Here we meet again the northern point Rehob or Beth-Rehob. We are also told that it was situated in a valley. Next to it was the city of Laish, and the Danites burned the city and then erected there a new city, Dan.

Beth-Rehob, or House of Rehob, is the place we met—in the story of the scouts sent by Moses — Beth-Rehob was the most remote point they visited going to the north.

The place was "far from Zidon"; if it were where it is looked for today—at the source of the Jordan—it would not have been proper to say "far from Zidon" but rather far "from Tyre." But if Zidon (Sidon) is named as the nearest large city. Tyre must have been still farther from Laish-Dan, and the latter city must have been more to the north, in the valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon.

The Danites were in contact with the Zidonians already at the time when they fought with the Philistines for the possession of territory. Because of want of land, they sent many of their sons as sailors on Phoenician ships. Judges5:17. In their new place of abode the Danites became kindred with the Phoenicians.

In Dan-Laish, "the children of Dan set up the graven image" of Micah, Judges 18:30. The story of this holy image is connected with the migration of the Danites to the north. Before migrating they sent a few men to find for them "an inheritance to dwell in." Judges 18:1 These men traversed, on their errand, the mountainous land of Ephraim. Micah was an Ephraimite who built a private chapel in Mount Ephraim, where he placed "a graven image and a molten image," and hired a Levite to serve there as a priest. Judges 17:4, 7-13. The men of Dan, dispatched on the errand to find a new domicile for the tribe, heard an oracle from the priest. After having spied the place of Laish, they returned to their tribe that dwelt in the hilly borderland of Zarah, and with six hundred warriors went to the north. Passing again Mount Ephraim, they took with them the image and the priest, despite the bitter protests of Micah. When they conquered Laish "the children of Dan set up the graven image." Judges 18:30. Since then, there was an oracle in Dan.

The name Dan-jaan, found in the Scriptures, Samuel 24:6 is apparently a synonym for Dan: it means "Dan of answer", or "of oracle". Dan became the site of the temple built by Jeroboam. It was a holy place long before he built his temple there, since the story of the oracle of Micah is conspicuously narrated in the Book of Judges; it is rather probable that Rehob was a sacred place even before the Danites built their city on the ruins of Laish close by.

It cannot be said of the present village of el-Kadi that it lies on the road "as men come to Hamath"; to satisfy this description, Rehob must be looked for farther to the north.

THE SUCCESSORS OF JEROBOAM

Being located in an outstretched part of the Israelite kingdom, Dan was often the subject of wars between the kings of Damascus and of Israel. Shortly after the death of Jeroboam, the temple city was conquered by the king of Damascus. 1.Kings 15:20 It appears that, at the time of the revolution of Jehu, three generations later, in the ninth century, Dan was still in the hands of the kings of Damascus; but it is said that Jehu, who destroyed the temple of Baal in Samaria (2.Kings 10), did not destroy the temple of Dan, nor did he abolish its cult, "the sin of Jeroboam." This implies that Dan came back into the hands of the Israelites in the days of Jehu. In any case, the population of the northern kingdom -that of Israel—but also of the southern kingdom - that of Judah-continued to go to Dan on the feasts of Passover and Tabernacles, preferring it to Jerusalem.

Jehu, jealous of the God Yahweh, did nothing to keep the people from going to Dan, and obviously even encouraged them to do so; the cult of Dan was one of Yahweh, though in the guise of a calf, or Apis. In the eighth century the prophet Amos, one of the earliest prophets whose speeches are preserved in writing, spoke of the worship at Dan:

"They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan liveth; and, The manner of Beer-Sheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again." Amos 8: 14

Hosanna, another prophet who lived in the eighth century, admonished: "let not Judah offend . . . neither go yea up to Beethoven." Hosea 4:15. He prophesied also that the "inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Beethoven," and that the glory of that place will depart from it. Hosea 10:5

It is generally agreed that Hosea, speaking of Beth-Aven ("the House of Sin" ), referred to Beth-El. This is supported by the verse in the Book of Joshua which tells: "And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth-Aven, on the east side of Beth-El." Joshua 7:2. [380] It appears that the name Beth-Aven, or "The House of Sin" was applied to both places where Jeroboam built temples for the worship of the calf. It is possible that, in another verse of his, Hosea had in mind the temple of Dan; he said: "The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed . . .". (Hosea 10:18); "The sin of Israel" is the usual term for the cult of Dan; and the "high places", according to the quoted story of Jeroboam placing calves in Dan and Beth-El, 1.Kings 12:28-30, were built in Dan. At the beginning of the Book of Amos, the following sentence appears: "I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven (me'bik'at Aven) . . . and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir . . ." Amos 1:5

I shall return later to this passage and to the accepted interpretation of "the plain of Aven." During the wars of the eighth century, the temple city of Dan may have taken part in the struggle of the Northern Kingdom for its existence, being oppressed first by Syria, and then by Assyria. Dan may have been besieged, and may have changed hands during these wars, but nothing is known of its destruction.

In the latter part of the eighth century the population of the Northern Kingdom was deported by Sargon II to remote countries, from where it did not return. More than a century later Jeremiah referred to the oracle of Dan: "For a voice declareth from Dan", (Jeremiah 4:15) which shows that the oracle of Dan was still in existence after the end of the Northern Kingdom. An oracle venerated since ancient times, a magnificent temple where the image of a calf was worshipped, a place where the tribes of Israel gathered in the days of the feasts, and the people of Judea used to come, too—this was the cult. On the way to Hamath, on the northern frontier of the Northern Kingdom, closer to Zidon (Sidon) than to Tyre, and strategically exposed to Damascus—this was the place. Would no ruins help to identify the site?

BAALBEK

In the valley that gives birth to two rivers of Syria—the Orontes flowing to the north, and the Litani flowing to the south and west, between the mountains of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, where roads from Palestine in the south, Damascus in the east, and the sea-coast on the west meet and run from there to Hamath in Upper Syria—lie the ruins of Baalbek.

"When we compare the ruins of Baalbek with those of many ancient cities which we visited in Italy, Greece, Egypt, and in other parts of Asia (and Africa), we cannot help thinking them to be the remains of the boldest plan we ever saw attempted in architecture. Is it not strange then, that the age and the undertaker of the works, in which solidity and duration have been so remarkably consulted, should be a matter of such obscurity. . .?[400]

SOLOMON'S BAALBEK

Local tradition, which may be traced to the early Middle Ages, points to a definite period in the past when Baalbek was built: the time of Solomon.

Ildrisi, the Arab traveler and geographer (1099-1154), wrote: "The great (temple-city) of astonishing appearance was built in the time of Solomon." [450]

The traveler Benjamin of Tudela wrote in the year 1160 of his visit to Baalbek: "This is the city which is mentioned in Scripture as Baalath in the vicinity of the Lebanon, which Solomon built for the daughter of Pharaoh. The place is constructed with stones of enormous size." [460]

Robert Wood, who stayed at Baalbek in the 1750's, and who published an unsurpassed monograph on its ruins, wrote: "The inhabitants of this country, Mohomedans, Jews and Christians, all confidently believe that Solomon built both, Palmyra and Baalbek." [470] Another traveler who visited Syria in the eighties of the eighteenth century recorded: 'The inhabitants of Baalbek assert that this edifice was constructed by Djenoun, or genies in the service of King Solomon." [480]

ON - AVEN

The identification of Bikat Aven, referred to in Amos 1:5 with the plain of Coele-Syria is generally accepted. [490] The text, already quoted, reads: "I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven . . ."

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible by the Seventy, renders the above text as "the valley of On," written the same as On (or Heliopolis) in Egypt. The Hebrew spellings of Aven and On do not differ in consonants; and vocals were inserted in the texts by the Masoretes in a later period. On is the Hebrew name of Heliopolis in Egypt, pronounced also as Aven, as in Ezekiel 30:17; Bikat Aven is the name of the plain of Baalbek in Amos. Tradition has it also that the cult of Baalbek was brought there from Heliopolis in Egypt. [500]

Hosea, however, called by the name of Aven (Beth-Aven) the cities of Bethel and Dan; Hosea 10:5 and he spoke of "high places" there, and in the instance where he referred to "the sin of Israel" he obviously meant Dan. Hosea 10:8.

Amos, who in the eighth chapter speaks against the worshippers at Dan, in chapter one speaks against the plain of Aven—and thus, comparing Hosea and Amos, one wonders whether Amos 1:5 speaks of Baalbek or of Dan.

The expression Bikat Aven, or the Valley (Plain) of Aven in Amos impelled the exegetes and commentators to refer the place to Coele-Syria, and this because Bi'qa is the specific name of the Coele-Syrian plain—still in use today. The very name Baalbek is generally explained as the Baal of Bi'qa or Bekaa—of the valley. Baalbek is situated in the valley between Lebanon and Hermon. Of Dan it is also said that it was situated in a valley:

". . . And it was in the valley that lieth by Beth-Rehob. And they built a city, and dwelt therein." Judges 18:28

Is Baalbek the Scriptural Baalath, as Benjamin of Tudela thought? About Baalath it is said: "And Solomon built . . . Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness." 1.Kings 9:17-18 Tadmor is Palmyra, far to the northeast of Baalbek. Baalath is said to have belonged to the tribe of Dan. Joshua 19:44

Or, is Baalbek the Scriptural Baal Gad, deliberated a few scholars? [530]

On Bethel see also 1.Kings 12:28-29.

It is said:

"Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon." [540]

If Solomon built in Palmyra in the desert between Syria and Mesopotamia, the region of Coele-Syria between Lebanon and Hermon could certainly be in the area of his building activity, argued these scholars. But placing Baal Gad in Coele-Syria, where would they place Dan, the northernmost point of the Kingdom of Israel? To keep Dan in Galilee and to place Baal Gad, an Israelite city, one hundred fifty kilometers farther to the north will not stand up against the indisputable fact that Dan was the northernmost city in Israel.

Some scholars, looking for Baalbek in the Scriptures, identified it with Baal-Hamon, referred to in the Song of Songs. (Song of Songs 8:11) And again, Baal Hamon is supposed to be another name for Baalath and Baal Gad. [560]

Also Baal Zaphon, or Zeus Cassius, was proposed as Baalbek. [570] In this connection it can be said that, according to the Talmud, Gad was the name of the planet Jupiter; [580] and Zeus Cassius signifies Jupiter of Lebanon; and Hamon was supposed to be a Syrian form of the name Amon [590]

All this together, if correct, points toward the cult of Jupiter in Baalbek, a matter to which we shall return in one of the next sections.

Besides Baal Gad, Baal Zaphon or Zeus Cassius, Baal Hamon, and Baalath, one more name is identified as Baalbek: Baalmelech, or "the royal Baal". [600]

THE TRILITHON

Already in the last century it was observed that the Acropolis of Baalbek and the temples built on it date from different epochs. The massive substratum—the great base of the acropolis—appears to be of an earlier date; the three temples on the substratum, of a later date.

It is even probable that the wall of the acropolis did not originate in one epoch. Among the stones of which it is built there are three of an unusual size—almost twenty meters long. Each of them weighs about one thousand tons. These huge monoliths are incased in the wall. The question arises whether they are not the survivals of the original cyclopean structure—that which carried the name Rehob, or Beth-Rehob, and which served as a landmark for the scouts dispatched by Moses in their survey of Canaan, and for the emissaries of the tribe of Dan in their search for the territory in the north. Like Stonehenge in Great Britain, or Tiahuanaco in the Andes, it may have originated in an early time—not necessarily neolithic, since it appears that these stones are subjected to hewing by metal tools.

In the quarry a mile away is found another stone of comparable size, cut out of the rock from all but one side; it appears that this stone of more perfect cut was quarried in a later time, possibly in the days of Jeroboam, or even later; but, for probably mechanical considerations, the work was not finished and the stone not removed, and the emulation of the early builders not completed. [610] In another place I intend to return to the problem of the Trilithon of Baalbek, when treating cyclopean buildings and the mechanical means of quarrying and transporting these monoliths.

THE EMBOSSED QUADERS

Aside from the incased trilithon, the attention of the visitor to Baalbek who inspects the wall of the acropolis is drawn to stones of a bossed shape with an indented rim on all four sides of the face of the stone.

O. von Richter in 1822 [620] drew attention to the fact that the quaders of the wall of the temple area of the acropolis of Baalbek have the same form as the quaders of the Temple of Solomon, namely, of the surviving western (outer) wall, or Wailing Wall. The Roman architects, wrote Wolcott, never built foundations or walls of such stones; and of the Israelite period it is especially the age of Solomon that shows this type of stone shaping (chiseling). The photograph of the outer wall of Baalbek's temple area illustrates that the same art of chiseling was employed in the preparation of stones for its construction. Whatever the time of construction of other parts of Baalbek's compound—neolithic, Israelite, Syrian, Greek, or Roman—this fundamental part of the compound must have originated in the same century as the surviving (western) wall of the area of Solomon's temple.

THE TEMPLES OF THE ACROPOLIS

The buildings on the flat plateau of the Acropolis have columns with capitals of Corinthian style. The time of the origin of these temples is disputed. An author of the last century [630] brought forth his arguments against a late date for the temples atop the acropolis; he would not agree to ascribe them to the Roman period, or Greek period; he dated them as originating in an early Syrian period: the Romans only renovated these buildings in the second century of the present era.

The opinions of scholars are divided over whether these buildings can be ascribed to Roman times, though the source of the designs on the doorways and the ceiling and in the capitals of the columns speak for a Roman origin. When the Roman authorship of the buildings is denied, the Romans are credited only with renovating the structures.

The Emperor who is sometimes said to have built the largest of the temples in the temple area—that of Jupiter—is Aelius Antoninus Pius (138-161 AD). The source of this information is the history of John of Antioch, surnamed Malalas, who lived not earlier than in the seventh century of this era, and wrote that Antoninus Pius built a temple for Jupiter at Heliopolis, near the Lebanon in Phoenicia, which was one of the wonders of the world. [640]

Julius Capitolinus, who wrote the annals of Antoninus Pius and enumerated the buildings he erected, offers no material support for the assertion made by the Syrian writer of the early Middle Ages.

Though Antoninus Pius did build in Baalbek, as is evidenced by his inscriptions found there, [650] his activity was restricted to reparation of the temples or the construction of one of the edifices in the temple area. [660] The work in its entirety could not have been his because Lucian, his contemporary, calls the sanctuary of Baalbek already ancient, and because Pompey had already found it in existence and Trajan consulted its oracle.

The style of the temples caused the same divergence of opinion as the style of the surviving ruins of Palmyra. Some regard them as Roman, [670] others as Hellenistic and Oriental. [680] They are sometimes called East-Roman. [690] In the case that only the ornamentation is of the Roman period the question may arise whether the walls and the columns of these buildings could be of as early a period as the seventh century before the present era, or the time of Manasseh, of whom Pseudo-Hippolytus says that he reconstructed Baalbek, built originally in the time of Solomon. [700]

THE CALF

It was almost a common feature in all places where pilgrims gathered to worship at a local cult that diminutive images of the deity were offered for sale to them. Also small figures of the god or of his emblem in precious or semi-precious metals were brought by worshippers as a donation to the temple where the large scale figure had its domicile.

In Baalbek archaeological work produced very few sacred objects or figures that could shed light on the worship of the local god. "It was a disappointment, next to the brilliant success of so rich an excavation, that nothing was learned of the nature of the deity and the history of its worship." [710]

Figures of Jupiter Heliopolitanus standing between two bullocks or calves have been found at Baalbek, dating from Roman times. [720] In addition, an image of a calf was also found. The only figure of an earlier time found in Baalbek is an image of a calf. Since it is to be expected that images found in an ancient temple are reproductions of the main deity worshipped in the holy enclosure, it is significant that the holy image in the temple of Baalbek was that of a calf, and of no other animal.

The name Baal-Bek (Baal-Bi'qa) is sometimes transmitted by Arab authors as Baal bikra, or Baal of the Steer or Calf, which is the way of folk etymology to adapt the name to the form of the worship practiced in the temple. This, together with the finding of the images of the calf in the area of the temple, strengthens the impression that the god of Baalbek was a calf.

THE ORACLE OF BAALBEK

Baalbek or, as the Romans called it, Heliopolis, was venerated in the Roman world as the place of an old cult of an ancient oracle, and it rivaled successfully other venerated temples of the Roman Empire.

It is known that the Emperor Trajan, before going to war against the Parthians in the year 115, wrote to the priests of Baalbek and questioned its oracle. The oracle remained in high esteem at least as late as the fourth century of the present era, when Macrobius in his Saturnalia wrote of Baalbek: "This temple is also famous for its oracles." [730]

Was it the ancient oracle of Micah? In the words of Jeremiah, shortly before the Babylonian exile of -586 in which he spoke of "a voice . . . from Dan", Jeremiah 4:15. we had the last biblical reference to the oracle of Micah. In the days of Jeremiah the oracle must have been seven or eight hundred years old. Did it survive until the days of Trajan and even later, until the days of Macrobius (late 4th to 5th centuries AD)?

In the Tractate Pesahim of the Babylonian Talmud is written the following sentence: "The image of Micah stands in Bechi." [740]

Bechi is known as the Hebrew name for Baalbek in the time of the Talmud. As we have seen, in the Book of Exodus it is recounted that the Danites, migrating to the North, took with them Micah and his idol, and that it was placed in Dan of the North. The Talmud was composed between the second and the fifth centuries of the present era.

This passage in the Tractate Pesahim is a stong argument for the thesis of this essay, namely that Baalbek is the ancient Dan. [750]

TWO PROBLEMS: A SUMMARY

The problems will be put side by side. Dan was the abode of the old oracle of Micah. Jeroboam built there a "house of high places", or a temple. Previously, he was the builder of Jerusalem's wall under Solomon; before becoming king of the Northern Kingdom he lived as an exile in Egypt. He introduced the cult of the calf in Dan. The new temple was built to contest and to surpass the temple of Jerusalem. It became the gathering place of the Ten Tribes, or "the sin of Israel", and pilgrims from Judah also went there.[755]

The prophets, who opposed the cult of Dan, called the place Aven, like Aven, or On (Heliopolis) in Egypt. Its oracle was still active in the days of Jeremiah, in the beginning of the sixth century. Dan was the northernmost city of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, and the capital of the tribe of Dan. It was situated in a valley. If Baal Gad, between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon was not the same place, Dan must have been more to the north.

The place was at the point where the roads meet that run toward Hamath. No ruins of this temple-city are found. Where was Dan and its temple?

Baalbek lies in a valley (Bi'qa) between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon, and on the junction of the roads that connect Beirut from the west and Damascus from the east with Hamath in the north. The history of the temple-city of Baalbek in pre-Roman times is not known, neither is its builder known, nor the time when it was built.

The tradition as to the age of the acropolis and temple area of Baalbek is not wrong. Only a few years after Solomon's death the house of the high places of Dan-Baalbek was built by Jeroboam.* Possibly, Solomon had already built a chapel for the oracle, besides the palace for his Egyptian wife.

The Djenoun who, according to Arab tradition, built Baalbek for Solomon were apparently the tribesmen of Dan. In the Hebrew tradition, too, the tribesmen of Dan, because of the type of worship in their capital, were regarded as evil spirits. In the corrupted name of Delebore, who, according to Macrobius, was the king who built Baalbek and introduced there the cult of Heliopolis from Egypt, it is possible to recognize the name of Jeroboam who actually returned from Egypt before he built "the house of the high places".

EDITORIAL POSTSCRIPT:
Velikovsky's essay on Baalbek was planned to include a discussion of the names by which this place was known in Egyptian texts. This part was not written, but a few notes of his, scattered among his papers, may help us to follow his reasoning. One note reads: "Dunip (Tunip) of the el-Amarna letters and other ancient sources was Dan. It was also Kadesh of Seti's conquest. Finally, the place is known as Yenoam ('Yahwe speaks') which refers to the oracle." Tunip: As Velikovsky noted [800] certain scholars (e.g., Gauthier) have identified Tunip with Baalbek, though others [810] have disputed the link. Thutmose III recorded the capture of Tunip in the 29th year of his reign; an inscription recounts the Egyptian king's entering the chamber of offerings and making sacrifices of oxen, calves, etc. to Amon and Harmachis. The el-Amarna letters indicate that the same gods were worshipped at Tunip as in Egypt.

On the walls of a Theban tomb of the time of Thutmose III (that of Menkheperre-Seneb), among paintings of foreigners of various nations, there is one of a personage from Tunip, carrying a child in his arms. Velikovsky thought that, possibly, it was a depiction of Jeroboam, and that the painting illustrated the passage in the First Book of Kings 11:40: "And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak, king of Egypt. . ." Among the considerations which led Velikovsky to identify Tunip with Dan-Baalbek were (1) Tunip was located in the general area of Baalbek, with some scholars asserting that the two were one and the same. (2) There was a temple of Amon at Tunip; the Roman equivalent of Amon - Jupiter - was worshipped at Baalbek. As Velikovsky noted, it is Kadesh of Seti's Conquest. [820] The relevant passage reads: "There is a mural that shows Seti capturing a city called Kadesh. Modern scholars recognized that this Kadesh or Temple City was not the Kadesh mentioned in the annals of Thutmose. Whereas the Kadesh of Thutmose was in southern Palestine, the Kadesh of Seti was in Coele-Syria. The position of the northern city suggested that it was Dunip, the site of an Amon temple built in the days of Thutmose III. Dunip, in its turn, was identified with Baalbek." [830]

Yenoam: Regarding Yenoam, I find only the following among Velikovsky's notes: "Yenoam-Dan (Yehu probably introduced the cult of Yahwe at Dan)." Yenoam, read in Hebrew, could be interpreted as "Ye [Yahwe] speaks"; Velikovsky evidently saw in the name a reference to the oracle at Dan. Yenoam is mentioned among the towns taken by Thutmose III (he captured it soon after taking `Mkty'). In the el-Amarna letter no. 197 there is a reference to a town named Yanuammu. Later, Seti recorded the despatching of an army against Yenoam, in the first year of his reign. Yenoam is once again mentioned on Merneptah's so-called Israel Stele; the claim is that it was "made non-existent." In Ramses II and His Time this deed is ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar. - Jan Sammer

Jerusalem and its Temple of the Lord built in the days of King Solomon, were looked upon as places where help for Israel could come from. It was the place in which `The Promise' was centered.

And "the angel said to her (Mary), Do not be afraid, Mary; God has been gracious to you. You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High God. The Lord God will make him a king, as his ancestor David was, and he will be the king of the descendants of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." Luke 1:30-33, GNB.

The life of Jesus was so very different from all others who were ever born, because He was baptized by John, fulfilled the Messianic prophecies given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15), to Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Malachi; he lived a faultless life. No sin was found in Him, and He rose from the grave, ascended to heaven, accomplishes the High Priestly ministry in the Sanctuary not build by man to Come Again as King and end the reign of sin.

Sin, once it became part of mankind nearly destroyed three times all of humanity: about every 2000 years,

1. in the Great Worldwide Flood because of its moral corruption
   
2. at the time Jesus was born - God sent Jesus so the world would not have to be destroyed because of its moral corruption
   
3. and in our very own days we are coming very close where, without divine intervention, sinful mankind is getting ready to destroy itself.

When the birth of John was announced to Zechariah, John's father, the Angel of the Lord shed more light on the mission of the Messiah.

1:68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
1:69 And has raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
1:78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
1:79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." Luke 1:68-79, KJV.

It was the cruel reign of Satan leading man to sin continually, worse and worse, which was snuffing out everywhere on earth, happiness, love and peace.

1:1 "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ." Romans 1:1-6, KJV.

Jeroboam became king over ten of the tribes of Israel when because of the sins of Solomon and Rehoboam the kingom of Israel was rent apart. What would Jeroboam do?

All the Lord asked him to do was to let Him lead him.

". . . you shall reign . . . And if you listen to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you." 1.Kings 11:37,38, ESV.

Alas, Jeroboam would not let the Lord lead him. He would

1. not obey the Lord's commands,
   
2. he was jealous and insecure,
   
3. he didn't want Israel to worship in Jerusalem,
   
4. he did not want to worship the Lord.

In his life we see the outworking of the reign of sin. We see how selfishness short-circuits logic; how it rationalizes the benefits of obedience recorded in the history of Israel away. It shows how unbelief will always make and find excuses for doubt. His life is positive proof that falling away from God makes it impossible for God to give him the blessings He had intended to give.

Jeroboam failed the Lord so insistently that his royalty would end with him - his whole house would perish.

Obedience is not Optional

The lesson we ought to learn from the time of Jeroboam.

His time was immersed in the first few years after the divided monarchy, a time of political and religious tension. Under the leadership of Jeroboam (and with the express blessing of the Lord, 1.Ki. 11:29-39), the ten tribes of Israel have separated themselves from Rehoboam. War hangs in the air, and it is during this time of instability and change that God sends His prophet with a specific message to King Jeroboam about the idolatrous worship in his northern kingdom, which would prove ultimately his ruin.

Below the surface of the following account about a nameless prophet lies the important issue of obedience and how seriously God takes our obedience. Whatever the unanswered questions may be, this story shows that any expression of the gospel without resulting obedience is, of necessity, a false gospel.

Jeroboam had set the ten tribes on a dangerous path. He did not deliberately set out to lead Israel from a worship of God to idolatry, instead, he was acting from political expedience. He created these other two centers of worship (Dan, Bethel) already discussed, claiming they would make it easier for Israelites, so they would not have to travel all the way to Jerusalem in order to worship. The golden calves were simply to be a visual reminder of God (not representations) and were to make worship more credible for the common Israelite. What started as a political move, however, led to the breaking of the Ten Commandments. (Ex. 20:4,5; Ex. 32).

This account lets us know that even a small deviation from a clear command of God has far-reaching effects. In the case of Israel, the golden calves led the nation on a path toward blatant sin. But things did not stop there. Jeroboam was obliged to make other changes as well. He wanted to persuade some of the Levites, living within his borders, to serve as priests at his newly established shrines. However, they saw the dangers and were not prepared to contradict God's commands. What would Jeroboam do? He was compelled to make priests of common people (1.Ki. 12:31,32), which in turn degraded the sacred office.

The story of Jeroboam's religious-political changes should have served as a warning to the early Christian church. However they didn't get it. In their time the same thing happened. Divine commandments were changed due to political or social influences. Sunday instead of Sabbath was now the new "holy" day, in order to distinguish the church from the Jews. The veneration of saints was introduced in order to make the worship of God more visual for heathen believers. The pressures that led to these changes are by no means limited to the time of Jeroboam or early Christianity. Today, as a church, we face similar challenges.

Politics of Religion

God's dramatic intervention at the inauguration ceremony gives the ordinary people plenty to talk about. After all a prophet made specific food prohibitions, an altar split open like a cracked egg, and then, more disturbing, a lying old prophet, and a selectively dangerous lion add to the enigma we study now.

In the middle of Jeroboam's political moves, God steps in and makes Himself heard. He speaks through a prophet sent from Judah. This unnamed prophet makes his appearance just as Jeroboam is standing before his altar at the dedication ceremony for the shrine. Anyone who was anybody in the kingdom of Israel would have been there. God selected the most opportune moment to act. The result is dramatic.

What happened?

13:1 "And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.
13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.
13:3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.
13:4 And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him.
13:5 The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord.
13:6 And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Entreat now the face of the Lord thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought the Lord, and the king's hand was restored him again, and became as it was before." 1.Kings 13:1-6.

The prophet, `man of God', connects him with some great prophets of the OT (Moses, Dt. 33:1; Elijah, 1Ki. 17:18), and the reader's expectations are raised high. As we quoted above, the `man of God' cries out against Jeroboam's altar and gives a prophecy. In his prophecy, a specific name, Josiah, is mentioned (V.2), This is amazing, because Josiah is born almost 300 years later. It reminds us of Cyrus, the Persian, whose name is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah about 200 years before his birth, Isa. 44:28; 45:1).

What are the main points of the message this `man of God' brings?

1. the altar is illegal, and he relays that God predicts that a descendant of David named Josiah will defile it. This is exactly what Jeroboam feared the most. He is establishing these worship centers especially to avoid losing his kingdom to someone who sits on David's throne.
   
2. next the prophet provides an immediate demonstration of God's power, thus guaranteeing the prophecy's future fulfillment. Before the eyes of everyone, the altar splits apart. Perhaps this is meant to remind the onlookers of the tablets of the Ten Commandments that Moses broke at the worship of the first golden calf.

It seems as if Jeroboam has learned nothing from history. He has two golden calves instead of one. And now instead of being repentant, Jeroboam points at the `man of God.' Pointing the hand, stick, or scepter has always been a sign of judgment in biblical times, but his arm became lame. Jeroboam wants to have him arrested. So much for surrendering to the will of God.

Even though Jeroboam reacted in stubborn unbelief, we see the mercy of God presented who did not destroy him. The splitting of the stone altar was a spectacular miracle. Jeroboam's hand, which "had dried up, so that he could not pull it in again", is immediately restored. After such convincing evidence, we would expect at least a public confession from Jeroboam, the king. But miracles cannot change our will. They do not make faithful Christians. Even after a dramatic intervention by God, it is surprisingly easy to find a "natural" explanation or just simply go back to our old habits.

Instead of abandoning his worship activities and wholeheartedly beginning a reformation, Jeroboam simply changes tactics (1.Ki. 13:7-10). He invites the `man of God' home with him and offers a reward. This was a political move aimed at neutralizing the effect of the message on the people who witnessed the miracle. King Jeroboam is offering to take the man of God into his employ. Only the one who is in charge or who is soliciting a service is in a position to offer a reward, but God's man is never to be on sale. He owes his allegiance to God and cannot let his messages from God be modified by whoever might be sponsoring him (Balaam; 2.Ki. 5:14-16; Dan. 5:13-17).

Giving a gift places the giver in a position of power, and the receiver "owes" the giver. The prophet does not accept. He walked the 7 miles from Bethel to Mizpah, in Judah, indicating his rejection of the response of Jeroboam.

Tempting Lies

The `man of God' must have understood something of the urgency of his mission for he followed the Lord's instructions exactly by rejecting the invitation and returning straight back. However, next we find him sitting and resting under a tree. Just 1.5 miles further and he would have been in Judah. But no, here he sits - waiting for what? By losing his sense of urgency, the man is opening himself up for temptation.

Along comes another old prophet who sees the `man of God' prophet under that tree. Why he decides to deceive the `man of God' we don't know. Whatever his motivation, the Bible tells us that "he lied" (1.Ki. 13:18). In this moment the old prophet becomes the agent of Satan, the father of lies (Jh. 8:44). Perhaps an even more disturbing part of the story is that the `man of God' seems to be so easily taken in by that lie. After so obviously being led of God, after so obviously doing the Lord's will, he just falls for the trick and goes directly against what God has told him to do.

That may be hard to understand, but wasn't he led astray? Nevertheless, God never excuses belief in a lie when the lie is directly opposed to a clear command that He has given.

Temptation revolves around the choice to disobey God's revealed will. Temptations don't change as much as the forms of the temptations do. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted as we are. The same basic temptations we face (albeit in modern disguise), and they were faced and conquered by Jesus. Jesus promises us insight and a "way of escape" so that we would not be taken in by Satan's lies, 1.Cor. 10:15.

Twin Temptations

How about two temptations, a twin set of them?

The `man of God' faced two temptations.

1. one which he powerfully resisted came forth from the king,
   
2. the other to which he succumbed came from the old prophet.

What important lesson do we learn from this? (See 2.Tim. 4:3; 2.Pt. 2:1; Jude 4-16).

The greatest threat to our faith is not persecution from the outside by political powers but rather false prophets and teachers who come from within us or who claim to speak in God's name.

That means we must know the Word of God. A true prophet or teacher will not contradict other inspired revelation. Because God never changes, He does not contradict Himself, and any new prophecy or teaching from God will add to established truth and not subtract from it. It also will encourage obedience and never disobedience. Finally, we can judge prophets and teachers by the results of their teaching for their audience and in their own lives.

As we saw already, Jeroboam never depended on the Lord God. His whole house he had hoped to install forever over Israel, yet it was doomed to vanish, because he insisted in his unbelief.

The penalty that overtook the unfaithful messenger was a still further evidence of the truth of the prophecy uttered over the altar. If, after disobeying the word of the Lord, the prophet had been permitted to go on in safety, the king would have used this fact in an attempt to vindicate his own disobedience. In the rent altar, in the palsied arm, and in the terrible fate of the one who dared disobey an express command of Jehovah, Jeroboam should have discerned the swift displeasure of an offended God, and these judgments should have warned him not to persist in wrongdoing. But, far from repenting, Jeroboam "made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places." Thus he not only sinned greatly himself, but "made Israel to sin;" and "this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth." Verses 33, 34; 14:16.

Toward the close of a troubled reign of twenty-two years, Jeroboam met with a disastrous defeat in a war with Abijah, the successor of Rehoboam. "Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the Lord struck him, and he died." 2 Chronicles 13:20.

The apostasy introduced during Jeroboam's reign became more and more marked, until finally it resulted in the utter ruin of the kingdom of Israel. Even before the death of Jeroboam, Ahijah, the aged prophet at Shiloh who many years before had predicted the elevation of Jeroboam to the throne, declared: "The Lord shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and He shall root up Israel out of this good land, which He gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves, provoking the Lord to anger. And He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin." 1 Kings 14:15, 16. {PK 107.1-3}

What lessons can we learn?

Men everywhere today are in danger of manifesting the same spirit that Jeroboam manifested, and of doing a work similar in character to the work that he did. His plans, put into operation, led the children of Israel away from God into idolatry, and they performed and permitted terrible evils. The Judge of all the earth will lay to the charge of Jeroboam the awful results of his course. And to the charge of those who follow his example will be laid the results of their wrong course. {2BC 1033.4}

Even though Jeroboam was evil, the Lord's mercy was shown by not cutting him off immediately. He was allowed to live his life until he died. Thus, he had plenty of time to come to his senses, recover logic, and return unto the Lord, but he would not.

Toward the end war came. We read,

"In the 18th year of King Jeroboam, Abijah began to reign over Judah. He reigned for 3 years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.
Now there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.
Abijah went out to battle, having an army of valiant men of war, 400,000 chosen men. And Jeroboam drew up his line of battle against him with 800,000 chosen mighty warriors.
Then Abijah stood up on Mount Zemaraim that is in the hill country of Ephraim and said,

`Hear me, O Jeroboam and all Israel! Ought you not to know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt? Yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat, a servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up and rebelled against his lord, and certain worthless scoundrels gathered about him and defied Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and irresolute and could not withstand them.
And now you think to withstand the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David, because you are a great multitude and have with you the golden calves that Jeroboam made you for gods. Have you not driven out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made priests for yourselves like the people of other lands?" 2.Chronicles 13:1-9, ESV.

Abijah claims that God is on his side. Even though not all of his facts are straight, he came into this war claiming the Lord God as his defender, saying,

"Behold God is with us at our head, and his priests with their battle trumpets to sound the call to battle against you. O sons of Israel, do not fight against the Lord, the God of your fathers, for you cannot succeed." 2.Chr. 13:12, ESV.

Was Abijah right? Was his reliance on the Lord genuine?

What does Jeroboam do? He tries to ambush Abijah of Judah from all sides.

"And when Judah looked, behold, the battle was in front of and behind them, And they cried out to the Lord, and the priests blew the trumpets. Then the men of Judah raised the battle shout. And when the men of Judah shouted, God defeated Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah." 2.Chr. 13:14-17, ESV.

The words of the Lord to Jeroboam were fulfilled this day. What Jeroboam's apostasy accomplished was what he had tried to stop. He had lost the war, his kingdom, his inheritance. All his ambitions were zeroed out. A wasted life.

Abijah's prophecy, "you cannot succeed" had yet to be fulfilled some more. Jeroboam reigned for 22 years. This war occurred in his 18th year. He had four more years of grace to return unto the Lord. But he did not and he died (909 BC) and his son Nadab began to rule over Israel.

"In the second year of the reign of King Asa of Judah, King Jeroboam's son Nadab became king of Israel, and he ruled for two years. Like his father before him, he sinned against the Lord and led Israel into sin." 2.Chr. 15:25,26, GNB.

But there was one, Baasha, son of Ahijah, of the tribe of Issachar, who plotted against Nadab and killed him as Nadab and his army were besieging the city of Gibethon in Philistia. Doing that, Baasha went on and killed all the family of Jeroboam so that none remained alive.

The house of Jeroboam was extinct. The words of the prophet were fulfilled - not because of forced events, but because of natural events - the results of their sins.

What was the disobedience of Jeroboam? He could not distinguish between the common and the holy.

Those kinds of problems exist even today in Christian churches - and we remember we write these things because we want to learn from the mistakes in history, to avoid them, if possible, today.

But . . . .

Ministers and people need the work of purification in their souls, that God's judgments may be turned away from them. God is waiting, waiting for humiliation and repentance. He will receive all who will turn unto Him with their whole heart. {MS 33, 1903; 3BC 1132.5}

God looks for willing hearts whom He can lead. If we turn away as these kings did in old times, we shall also experience the outworkings of our sins in similar ways.

Not considering God's ways will give Satan occasion to lead churches into universal apostasy from which national ruin takes its course.

Is that only so in Christian nations?

No. All people on earth are God's children. All can call on the only true God, Creator of heaven and earth, and God will hear them if they would. But unbelief is a hard heart; an unbendable mind; a set way. God works only through willing obedience. He forever honors our freedom of choice.

Where are the churches today? And we consider now only the churches which have, or should have, a knowledge of these Bible accounts.

Are they consulting the scriptures to learn of them?

Hardly. They too go headstrong into situations the Lord wants to protect them from.

Does God still have his `peculiar' people on earth?

Probably much less than there ought to be.

Are we Christians more like those around us? Can the world see differences?

What can we do? Who is Jesus working for? To where does it all lead?

God's Christian people on earth ought to know that they have a `hearing' problem.

That is why we read,

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:19,20, KJV.

Is God the source of all of our activities? Or are we imitating the world?

Do we know, that if we do imitate the world rather than consult the Lord, we end up in the same straits wicked men of old did end up in? It is said, `Why do you help the wicked people and love those who hate the Lord?' Ps. 34:21.

If our obedience today is not based on faith, we come up short.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev. 3:21.

"All these promises are made to us, my dear friends. So then, let us purify ourselves from everything that makes body or soul unclean, and let us be completely holy by living in awe of God." 2.Corinthians 7:1, GNB.

Let us cleanse ourselves by accepting what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, did for us already - let us confess, repent, and amend our ways, cleanse us from all that contaminates, body and spirit, by perfect holiness in the fear of God.

[050] Septuagint, Reignorum III: 12, 24e. The Septuagint gives us here another historical detail not found in the Bible.

[060] Item #10.130.1003.

[100] See `Symbols of Power', Biblical Archaeology, Vol. 9, No. 3, Sept. 1986, pp. 166-173; Discusses in particular the fortress at Khirbet el-Marjameh, accompanied with drawings.

[130] Septuagint, Reignorum III, 11:26. Zeruah in Hebrew is, . In Greek it is, , Sarira.

[150] Translated from Virolleaud, `La Legende de Keret'.

[200] This is in accord with what the biblical archaeologists expect, for they think the temple of Dan to have been a very modest structure of which, most probably, hardly any ruins would have remained. [See Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 16 (1966), pp. 144-145; ibid., vol. 19 (1969), pp. 121-123. - - In 1980, an arched city gate was reportedly uncovered at this site. - LER; See `Biblical Archaeology Review', July/Aug 1987, A. Biran, `Twenty Years of Digging at Tell Dan', pp. 12-25; The image of the city gate is on p. 17.

[240] Antiquities V.3.i.

[300] Similarly, the passage in the Book of Enoch (13:7), which refers to Dan to the "south of the western side of Hermon" must not be treated as a historical location.
Other archaeologists locate `Dan' on the banks of the Jordan River some 50 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, on the basis of a 6 x 10 inch limestone tablet discovered at Tel Dan in 1976 by Professor Biran. The bilingual inscription in Greek and Aramaic refers to a person named Zoilos who made a vow to the "god who is in Dan." or, in an alternative reading, to the "god of the Danites." Found in Tel Dan's sacred area, this votive inscription dates to the late 3rd or early 2nd century BC based on the style of the scripts. Who is right, Jan Sammer or Professor Biran? How difficult would it be to transport a tablet of that size? It was certainly found along the way toward the real Dan.

[380] Also consider these scriptures: Joshua 18:11-12: "and the lot . . . of Benjamin .... and their border . . . at the wilderness of Beth-Aven." Cf. also 1.Samuel 13:5 and 14:23.

[400] Robert Wood, `The Ruins of Palmyra and Baalbek' (Royal Geographical Society, London, 1827), Vol. Ill, p. 58; first published as The Ruinen of Baalbec (1757). See also Henri-Paul Eydoux, In Search of Lost Worlds, 1971, p. 263ff. Also shows a coin of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, p. 264.

[420] "Wir wissen äusserst wenig von dem Schicksal Baalbeks im Altertum", O. Puchstein, Führer durch die Ruinen von Baalbek (Berlin, 1905), pp. 3-4.

[430] "Es war leider bei den an glänzenden Erfolgen so reichen Ausgrabungen eine Enttäuschung, daß sie über das Wesen des Gottes und die Geschichte seiner Verehrung nichts gelehrt hat." H. Winnefeld, `Baalbek, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen von 1895-1905', ed. by Th. Wiegand, Vol. II (Berlin, 1923), p. 110.

[440] C. F. Volney, Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte, pendent les années 1783-1785 (Paris, 1787), p. 224.

[450] Idrisi in P. Jaubert, `Geographie d'Edrisi' (Paris, 1836-1840), I, p. 353; quoted by C. Ritter, Die Erdkunde, Vol. XVII (Berlin, 1854), p. 224.; Gazwini (d. 1823 or 4) explained the origin of the edifices and the name of the place by connecting it with Balkis, the legendary Queen of the South, and with Solomon. [Al-Qazwini Zakariya ibn Muhammad, `Kosmographie', H. F. Wüstenfeld ed. (Berlin, 1848-49), II, p. 104.]

[460] A. Asher tr. and ed.. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (N.Y. 1840-41).

[470] R.Wood, `The Ruins of Palmyran Baalbek', (London, 1827), p.58.

[480] C. F. Volney, op. cit., p. 224.

[490] E. Robinson, `Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions' (London, 1874), Vol. Ill, pp. 519-520.

[500] Lucian, De Dea Syria, par. 5; Macrobius, Saturnalia I. 23: Assyrii quoque Solem sub nomine Jovis, quem Dia Heliopoliten cognominant, maximis ceremoniis in civitate, que Heliopolis nuncupatur. Ejus dei simulacrum sumtum est de oppido Aegypti, quod et ipsum Heliopolis apellatur, regnante apud Aegyptios Senemure; perlatum est primum in eam per Opiam, legatum Deleboris, regis Assyriorum, sacerdotesque Aegyptios, quorum princeps fuit Partemetis, diuque habitum apud Assyrios, postea Heliopolim commigravit.

[530] Michaelis, Supplementa ad lexica hebraica (Göttingen, 1784-1792), pp. 197-201; Ritter, Die Erdkunde, Vol. XVII, pp. 229-230; E. F. C. Rosenmüller, The Biblical Geography of Asia Minor, Phoenicia and Arabia, tr.by N. Morren (Edinburgh, 1841), 1. ii., pp. 280-281; W. H. Thomson, "Baalbek" in Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th ed.), Vol. II, p. 835.

[540] Joshua ll:17;cf. St. Jerome, Onomastica, article "Baalgad". E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, Vol. I (first ed., Berlin, 1884), p. 364, note; Robinson, Biblical Researches, III, p. 410, n. 2.

[550] Cf. Robinson, Biblical Researches, III, p. 519; Ritter, Die Erdkunde Vol. XVII, pp. 229-230.

[560] G. H. von Schubert, Reise in das Morgenland in den Jahren 1836 und 1837 (Erlangen, 1838, 1839); Wilson, Lands of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 384.

[570] O. Eissfeldt, `Tempel und Kulte syrischer Städte in hellenistischrömischer Zeit', (Leipzig, 1941), p. 58.

[580] The Hewbrew word Gad is supposed to mean "lot", "fortune".

[590] The Bible knows two by the name of `Amon', (1) a governor of Samaria in the days of Ahabm 1.Ki. 22:26; 2.Chr. 18:25; and (2) the son and successor of Manasseh, 2.Ki. 21:19-25; Jer. 1:2; Zeph. 1:1; Matt. 1:10.

[600] Melech ("king") was a great-grandson of Saul, 1.Chr. 8:35;9:41.

[610] See the recent discussion by Jean-Pierre Adam, "À propos du trilithon de Baalbek, Le transport et la mise à l'oeuvre des mégalithes", Syria LIV (1977), pp. 31-63.

[620] O. von Richter, `Wallfahrt', p. 88; quoted by Ritter, `Die Erdkunde', XVII, p. 231, and S. Wolcott in 1843; S. Wolcott, "Notices of Jerusalem; and Excursion to Hebron and Sebeh or Masada; and Journey from Jerusalem northwards to Beirut, etc." in Bibliotheca Sacra (1843), p. 82; quoted by Ritter, `Die Erdkunde', XVII, p. 232.

[630] See von Schubert, `Reise in das Morgenland', op. cit.. Vol. III, p. 325.

[640] Chronographia in Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 11, p. 280. The coin image of Antoninus Pius (138-161) can be seen in `Archaeology', Mar/Apr 2000, p. 18.

[650] Robinson, `Biblical Researches', III, p. 509.

[660] Robinson suggested that "Antonine rebuilt the great temple of the Sun: and erected the lesser temple to Jupiter Baal" (Biblical Researches, III, p. 520, n.6).

[670] O. Puchstein in Th.Wiegand ed. Palmyra (Berlin, 1932).

[680] B. Schulz in Wiegand ed., Palmyra.

[690] H. Winnefeld, B. Schulz, Baalbek (Berlin, Leipzig, 1921, 1923).

[700] L. Ginzberg, `Legends of the Jews', (Philadelphia, 1928), VI, p. 375.

[710] Winnefeld in Wiegand, Baalbek, op. cit., Vol. II (1923), p. 110.

[720] Rene Dussaud, "Jupiter heliopolitain", Syria 1 (1920), pp. 3-15; Nina Jidejian, Baalbek Heliopolis "City of the Sun", (Beirut, 1975), ill. no. 135-140.

[730] Sat. i. 23. 12.

[740] Pesahim 117a; see Ginzberg, `Legends of the Jews', VI, p. 375.; Eusebius Pamphili, Evangelicae Praeparationis, Vol. I, x: 38a where Kronos is father of Belus.; The Babylonian god `Bel' is Baal, G. Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, NY, 1885, Vol. I, p. 76.

[750] The readers of this passage probably understood it in the sense that Micah's oracular image, after being removed from the temple of Dan, was placed in Baalbek. Baalbek being Dan, such an interpretation is superfluous. Conclusion about (Tel) Dan: We should take note then that according to this information the conventional `Tel Dan' near Highway 99, Mt. Hermon and Nimrod's Fortress, is not the biblical city of Dan. It is however, the location of the so-called `Tel Dan' inscription.

[755] The `Twelve Tribes' included: (1) Reuben, (2) Simeon, (3) Levi, (4) Judah, (5) Dan, (6) Naphthali, (7) Gad, (8) Asher, (9) Isaachar, (10) Joseph, (11) Ephraim, (12) Benjamin.; (Genesis 29:32-35; 30:1-25; 1.Ki. 11:29-35); The division of Israel as to those who followed Rehoboam and those who were loyal to Jeroboam is recorded in 1.Kings 11. Only Judah at remained loyal to Rehoboam, the Lord's Temple in Jerusalem, 1.Ki. 12:20. - So, if Jeroboam had 10 tribes and Rehoboam had 1 tribe, what happened to the 12th tribe? The answer is that the two pieces of the mantle of the prophet Ahijah represents two tribes which were to remain for the descendants of David. What happened is that half of the tribe of Benjamin followed Jeroboam and the other half remained loyal to Rehoboam - thus we count Judah and Benjamin as the two tribes of Judah.(1.Ki. 11:29,30).

[800] E.g., Gauthier.

[800] Velikovsky in "From the End of the Eighteenth Dynasty to the Time of Ramses II" (KRONOS III.:3, p. 32.

[810] E.g., Astour.

[820] This identification was given in brief in Velikovsky's article in KRONOS III:3, mentioned above.

[830] Pseudo-Hippolytus (Sermo in Sancta Theophania in J. -P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus [Graeca] Vol. 10, col. 705) gives the information that Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, restored Baalbek. In his forthcoming Assyrian Conquest, Velikovsky suggests that this could have been a reward for Manasseh for his "loyalty to the Assyrian-Egyptian axis".