When Protests Backfire

Two related points came to my attention over the past week. 

The first was from a summary of the year 2020 published by the Barna group. The Barna group found that as the result of "the surge of racial justice protests and activism" in the summer of 2020 is that the number of people "not at all motivated" to address racial justice almost doubled from the previous year, with a corresponding shrinkage in the "somewhat motivated" category. The other categories stayed about the same. This means that the protests, rather than motivating people to change, completely alienated some of those who had been somewhat favorably inclined.

The Barna study also found that the number of people who say that race is not a problem almost doubled over the same period (from 11% to 19%). Obviously the majority of Americans think that race is still a problem in the United States, but almost one in ten who had thought it was a problem decided, on second thought, that it wasn't.

The second was that about a dozen years ago, two scholars surveyed the success rate of protests and published their findings in the journal International Security. They found that non-violent protest movements achieved their goals 53% of the time (slightly over half the time), but violent protests achieved their results only 26% of the time (only about a quarter of the time).

Thus, if you launch a non-violent protest movement, your success is likely to be a flip of the coin. Is it worth it? It depends on whether you are a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kind of person. If the protest turns violent, however, your odds of success will half. Resorting to violence alienates people who would be inclined to support you.

A couple of decades ago, I did my own informal survey about whether academic protests were actually effective. These were the sort of letter-writing campaigns that happen when a university decides to shutter an ancient studies program. Again, success has been something of a coin-toss. Indeed, the enthusiasm for this course of action seems utterly unconnected from its efficacy. You can see the latest variation on this theme here.

What does this have to do with the ancient world? Two things: First, protests have a very long history, and anciently were a risky proposition. Jeroboam's protest against Rehoboam turned violent and did prove successful (1 Kings 12:1-20), but that seems to have been more of the exception. Psammetichus I successfully threw off the yoke of the Assyrian empire, but most of those who protested against the Assyrians paid dearly for it in the long run, just ask Sidqa, king of Ashkelon.

The second, is an event that happened in a class on ancient languages: Years ago, when I was a graduate student at U. C. Berkeley, I remember looking with my professor out the window of his office in Evans Hall at a protest being staged for a cause that my professor had worked long and hard for. He shook his head and said to me: "They give the movement a bad name."

Using Historical Information to Answer Old Testament Questions

What use is history in the study of the Old Testament?

A friend asks the following question about Joshua 1:3-4 ("Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast."):

What do you make of the fact that Israel never attained the borders described here? 1 Kings 5:1 describes Solomon as ruling this entire land, but rather than rule directly, he ruled through vassal states that owed him tribute. The people of Israel did not occupy that land even when Solomon controlled it.

It is hard to know where to start with a question like this. As phrased the question reflects a profound ignorance of both the ancient world and the Bible. My friend has unfortunately only read the scriptural text and has had a little second-hand exposure to literary-critical scholarship, but never really delved into history or archaeology. The description of the lands that Solomon ruled over is in 1 Kings 4:21-24, not 1 Kings 5:1:

And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. . . . For he had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah even to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all sides round about him. (1 Kings 4:21, 24)

So the biblical text actually says that in the days of Solomon Israel did attain the borders described in Joshua. (Azzah is modern Gaza; Tiphsah is on the Euphrates). But what about the rule through vassal states?
 
It was actually typical to rule over this territory through vassal states as we know from Hittite inscriptions, the El-Amarna tablets, the Idrimi inscription, the Azitiwada inscription from Karatepe, and the Assyrian inscriptions. The Hittites, Egyptians, and Assyrians all had empires covering this area that were ruled through vassal states. Judah and Israel themselves became, at times, vassal states. Even the book of Judges describes the typical functioning of vassal states. It is not clear why Solomon should be an exception.

Here the inscriptional evidence discovered by archaeology can help.

The following maps show where monumental Neo-Hittite inscriptions (mostly royal inscriptions) left by various kingdoms north of Israel. Monumental inscriptions attest independent kingdoms.

These are the locations of inscriptions that date to the tenth century. This is the time of Solomon.

Neo-Hittite States in the Tenth Century B.C.

At this time, the kingdoms of Karkamesh and Melid (known from the eleventh century) are joined by the kingdoms of Kummuh, Gurgum, Masuwari and Halab. Halab is the furthest south that an independent kingdom exists.

In this map we see inscriptions dating to the ninth century. This is the time of Elijah:

Neo-Hittite States in the Ninth Century B.C.

At this time, kingdoms of Unqi, Hamath, Que, and those of the region of Tabal join the list (although Melid is not attested at this time).The Tabal region needs a special note as this is a region populated by individual independent kingdoms on a smaller scale than the larger kingdoms in the south east. So while the colored dots represent parts of larger states, the grey ones are independent.

The kingdom of Hamath, which is mentioned in the Bible as being immediately north of Israel, appears as an independent entity at this time.

To the east of Hamath was the Aramaean state of Aram-Damascus. But

It is only towards the end of the 10th century B.C. that Damascus becomes a significant political entity in the Levant as capital of an Aramaean state.

(Edward Lipinski, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion [Leuven: Peeters, 2000], 367.)

In fact:

With the death of Solomon and the division of his kingdom into two small rival states of Israel and Judah began the political ascendancy of Damascus in southern Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan.

(Lipinski, The Aramaeans, 370.)

So Aram-Damascus mainly comes into play in the ninth century.

In the last map, we see inscriptions dating to the eighth century. This is the century of the Assyrian conquests:

Neo-Hittite States in the Eighth Century B.C.

During this time, the Assyrian empire swallowed up many of these kingdoms. The inscriptions come from the earlier part of the century.

So looking at these maps, one of the things that we can notice is precisely at the time period of Solomon, we do not have independent kingdoms in the area of Solomon's empire while we do have them later. This is not proof that Solomon controlled all this area but is evidence consistent with that hypothesis.

Thus the archaeological and epigraphic evidence supports the biblical account of Solomon controlling the area up to the Euphrates. If Israel controlled that territory, this would mean, in turn, that Israel did obtain the borders that the Lord described in Joshua even if they did not hold the territory long. Unfortunately, the basis of my friend's question is thoroughly wrong. From a historical background, the question does not even make sense.

This example illustrates why it might be useful to know something about the history, archaeology, and epigraphy of the ancient world and not limit ourselves to literary, theological, or philosophical approaches to scripture.

The Israelite Sense of History

David Bokovoy recently made the following statement as part of a larger argument:

Biblical authors were not historians, at least not in the modern sense of the term. They were storytellers. Their accounts were certainly sacred, but they were also entertaining, and sometimes even political and crude. Biblical stories tell us something about the way their respective authors understood the past, but they don’t always tell us something about “the” past. The original authors who produced the Bible created stories about prophets, kings, and heroic warriors that were carefully crafted to teach valuable ideas concerning divinity and its relationship to humanity, especially the family of Israel.

It’s important for modern readers of the Bible to recognize that biblical historians were not motivated to write their accounts out of antiquarian interest. The past was far too important a tool for these authors to simply recount what really happened. Instead, biblical authors used history as a tool to covey themes concerning the God of Israel and his relationship to his chosen people.

Bokovoy's larger argument is that members of the Church need not view their scriptures as historical, because, after all, the Israelites did not see their scriptures as historical. He sees Latter-day Saints who view their scriptures as historical as holding a problematic view:

For Hoskisson, if the scriptures do not present true history, they have little value as a religious force. Whether right or wrong, this view is difficult to reconcile with the way ancient authors traditionally viewed “scripture.”

Bokovoy's original statements, however, do not square with the biblical record. In the books of Kings and Chronicles, the authors are consistently citing earlier sources:

And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? (1 Kings 11:41)

And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (1 Kings 14:19)

Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 14:29)

Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 15:7)

The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 15:23)

Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 15:31)

Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:5)

Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:14)

Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:20)

Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:27)

Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 22:39)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 22:45)

Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 1:18)

And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 8:23)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 10:34)

And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 12:19)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 13:8)

And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 13:12)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 14:15)

And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 14:18)

Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 14:28)

And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 15:6)

And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:11)

And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:15)

And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 15:21)

And the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:26)

And the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:31)

Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 15:36)

Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 16:19)

And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 20:20) 

Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 21:17)

Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 21:25)

Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 23:28)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 24:5)

The books of chronicles are not those of our Bible, they are annals, written records of the accounts of historical deeds of the rulers. While they have not been preserved, we have comparable annals from other ancient Near Eastern cultures like Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. The annals of Hezekiah record his fashioning a conduit to bring water (2 Kings 20:20) for which the commemorative inscription has been discovered archaeologically. These ancient annals were produced for many of the same reasons that modern historical records of heads of state are preserved. The books of Kings cite them just as a modern historian would cite his sources. The tradition of keeping specific historical annals in both Israel and Judah starts after the reign of Solomon, which is an indication that this is not a formulaic phrase thrown in for effect.

The sources for the books of Chronicles are more varied:

they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression. (1 Chronicles 9:1)

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, With all his reign and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries. (1 Chronicles 29:29–30)

Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 9:29)

Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? (2 Chronicles 12:15)

the acts of Asa, first and last, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chronicles 16:11)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 20:34)

Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and the repairing of the house of God, behold, they are written in the story of the book of the kings. (2 Chronicles 24:27)

Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel? (2 Chronicles 25:26)

Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars, and his ways, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. (2 Chronicles 27:7)

Now the rest of his acts and of all his ways, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chronicles 28:26)

Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chronicles 32:32)

Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 33:18)

And his deeds, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. (2 Chronicles 35:27)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 36:8)

Whoever wrote Chronicles no longer had access to the various annals, but they did have recourse to the book of Kings, which was more or less the book of Kings that we have. We can check their references. They also reference records kept by various prophets and priests, who are precisely the type of people in the ancient Near East who were known to be literate and so could keep records. When they refer to the vision of Isaiah, this appears to be some form of the book of Isaiah that we still have and which contains at least some of this information. All of this shows the keeping of various historical records and referencing them similar to the way that modern historians do it.

Citation of earlier records also appears in other records. Here is a small sample:

Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, And at the stream of the brooks that goeth down to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the border of Moab. (Numbers 21:14–15)

As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses (Joshua 8:31)

Is not this written in the book of Jasher? (Joshua 10:13)

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses (Joshua 23:6)

Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher. (2 Samuel 1:18)

We also know that in ancient Israel books were written for reference purposes so that they could be consulted in the future:

Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. (1 Samuel 10:25)

Here a record is made so that it may be consulted in the future. Similar reasons are cited in Hammurabi's stele establishing his law code. This is standard procedure in the ancient Near East.

Furthermore, prophetic books make records to known historical events that serve to anchor the events they talk about historically:

The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. (Amos 1:1)

The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. (Hosea 1:1)

The word of the Lord that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. (Micah 1:1)

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. (Isaiah 1:1)

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:1)

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, (Isaiah 7:1)

In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, (Isaiah 20:1–2)

The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: To whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month. (Jeremiah 1:1–3)

The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah (Jeremiah 35:1)

The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king (Jeremiah 3:6)

And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia (Ezra 4:7)

These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe. (Nehemiah 12:26)

The word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah. (Zephaniah 1:1)

Prophetic books also cite previous historical prophecies:

Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. (Jeremiah 26:18)

This is a quotation of Micah:

Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest. (Micah 3:12)

Prophetic books also point to known events in the past as historical references:

they have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah (Hosea 9:9, referring to the episode in Judges 19:12-30)

yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah (Zechariah 14:5)

All of this points to a historical consciousness among biblical writers. (I have deliberately excluded the Pentateuch which David seems to think is completely unhistorical, but one can find the same concerns there as well.)

At this point, it is worth citing a much more experienced and distinguished scholar of the ancient Near East on the subject:

First, it was common custom for ancient kingdoms (from the third millennium onward) to keep a series of running records for hardheaded, administrative purposes, on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. Naming of years after significant events, and compiling lists of these years with their events, perhaps formed rudimentary chronicles that recorded actual facts and happenings of all kinds. Daybooks became customary, whether called such or not, in the guise of running records as in first-millennium Babylonia, or annotated lists of annual eponym officers in Assyria. From these detailed running series of "annals" a variety of writers could draw, in order to compose their own works on historical matters. Such efforts could vary from such as the Babylonian Chronicle, which gave a compact, objective digest of mainly political events (military campaigns by successive kings, etc.), to more partisan texts as in the Synchronous History (Grayson, no. 21, probably derived from a stela) asserting Assyrian military and moral ascendancy over Babylonia. Or we find "special interest" chronicles, such as the Akitu Chronicle (no. 16), whose author noted years in which the Akitu feast of Marduk was not celebrated in Babylon, along with contemporary events, and the "Religious Chronicle" (no. 17), whose author noted celebration or otherwise of temple feasts and was obsessed with wild animals straying into Babylon (and there killed), among other phenomena.

So too with biblical Kings and Chronicles. These works are not the official annals of Israel and Judah, but they explicitly refer their readers to the official annals or daybooks (Heb. "daily affairs") of the kings of Israel and Judah. From Wenamun, it is clear that the kings of Byblos in the early eleventh century kept daybooks, incorporating records of past sales of timber to foreign kingdoms such as Egypt. At two removes, the king list of Tyre cited by Josephus after Menander of Ephesus (from the latter's history of Tyre and neighbors) clearly draws upon quite accurate tradition when compared with other evidence. Neo-Hittite kingdoms such as Carchemish, Malatya, and Gurgum maintained their royal traditions, as is implied by their known hieroglyphic texts. Thus there is good reason to credit Israel and Judah with the same practices as everyone else in their world, namely, keeping running records upon which others (such as the authors of Kings and Chronicles) could draw for data in writing their own "special interest" works. To dismiss references to these "annals" of Israel and Judah is wholly unjustified in this cultural context.

(K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003], 48-49.)

Now, lets consider the opinion of another scholar of the ancient Near East from a very different ideological perspective:

The [Egyptian] Middle Kingdom confronts us with a genuine and well-attested resuscitation of the past, albeit one which was consciously designed to serve the ends of the 12th Dynasty regime in power.

During the New Kingdom:

Interest in the past and its memorials increased. Sometimes it was genuine, if not academic, interest in the past for its own sake; mostly it involved piety attendant upon refurbishing ancestral monuments.

(Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History [Missasauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1986], 334-35.)

If there is academic interest in the past for its own sake in Egypt in the last half of the second millennium B.C. there is no specific reason to suppose that there could not be academic interest in the past next door in Israel in the first half of the first millennium B.C. And, as we have seen, the Bible provides evidence for that sort of academic interest.

So the records left by ancient Israel show that they have some sense of history comparable to the modern sense of history. They kept historical records and referenced them to compile accounts of what actually happened in the past. They may have been biased and tendentious, and maybe even inaccurate at times, but they were historical. They meant to preserve a record of the past for their own and future generations. Ancient Israelites viewed the Bible (or at least significant portions of it) as historical records of actual historical events. Their view was much closer to Hosikisson's than Bokovoy would like it to be. Bokovoy's first premise does not hold and no sound argument can be based on it.

Adoram

Sometimes government officials assume they have more power than they actually do and forget that their power derives from the consent of the governed. They should consider the case of Adoram. Adoram's case covers but half a verse of scripture but it is still informative:

Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. (1 Kings 12:18)

The children of Israel had already specified that they would not accept Rehoboam's policy decision, and even though Adoram had the full weight of the government behind him, it proved insufficient in the end when the people said that they would not accept a government decree that went further than they agreed to go.

The Trials of Micaiah, son of Imlah

Pity poor Micaiah, the son of Imlah! One of about four hundred prophets of the Lord in Ancient Israel at the time of Ahab, he was not very popular. When Ahab, the king of Israel, got together with his son-in-law, Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, the two of them decided to embark on a military venture to seize Ramoth-Gilead from Syria (1 Kings 22:3-4). Jehoshaphat was willing to go with his father-in-law but first he wanted assurance that this was the right thing to do (1 Kings 22:4-5):

5 And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord to day.
6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might enquire of him?
8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the Lord: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
9 Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah.
10 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them.
11 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them. 12 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand.
13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good.
14 And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.
15 ¶ So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
16 And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord?
17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? (1 Kings 22:5–18).

Micaiah was the only one of the prophets willing to speak the truth to the king. The king, in turn, hated him for telling the truth. So did the other prophets:

19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
24 But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?
25 And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.
26 And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son;
27 And say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace.
28 And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of you. (1 Kings 22:19–28)

Of course, the whole military venture was a fiasco and Ahab died because of it (1 Kings 22:29-37) and Micaiah had told them so. Micaiah was thrown into prison because he dared speak the truth. We are never told if Micaiah was released from prison afterwards. Sometimes people just won't listen when their hearts are set on a bad idea.