Troy D. Cudworth, «The Division of Israel’s Kingdom in Chronicles: A Re-examination of the Usual Suspects.», Vol. 95 (2014) 498-523
The Chronicler constantly adapts the story of Israel’s kingship from the narrative in Samuel-Kings to show his great interest in the temple. With regard to the division of the united kingdom, recent scholarship has correctly shown how he has removed all the blame from Solomon due to his successful construction of the temple, but it has not come to any firm conclusion on whom the Chronicler does find guilty. This article contends that the Chronicler blames Rehoboam for ignoring the plea of «all Israel», an essential facet of the nation’s temple worship.
002_cudworth_co_498_523 13/02/15 11:26 Pagina 520
520 TROY D. CUDWORTH
Though this interpretation may work somewhat for v. 6, Japhet’s
identification of the pronominal suffix in wyl[ with Jeroboam in v.
7 creates several problems. For example, the Chronicler’s report of
the Shechem council nowhere records any group resembling
“blackguards”, but he modifies the text so that all Israel stands with
Jeroboam against the new king Rehoboam. As we saw in the reigns
of David and Solomon, the Chronicler uses this moniker to signify
the idealized faithful within the country, and so the “worthless
scoundrels” cannot refer to them.
Furthermore, this interpretation must translate the expression
l[ wcmaty as “defy” to make the point, yet nowhere else does this
verb in any form have this sense. Dillard cautions against putting too
much weight on this word because it occurs only once in the hith-
pael with this preposition 66, but certainly it must mean something
closer to the root’s other uses than what Japhet has suggested.
Williamson has offered a different interpretation of vv. 6-7 which
attributes both of the ambiguous terms to Rehoboam 67. This read-
ing makes a better identification of wynda, since Jeroboam’s rebel-
lion against Rehoboam does exist in the Chronicler’s history (cf.
2 Chronicles 10). For the pronoun in wyl[, this identification also
coheres more with the Chronicler’s text, since wynda would be
the nearest antecedent. Moreover, it allows a more natural use
of l[ wcmaty as “prevailed over” similar to v. 18 or even “persuaded”,
which fits well as a reference to how the young counsel urged Re-
hoboam to take his foolish action (10,8-11) 68. Thus, Williamson’s
solution appears to fit better in the close context of the speech
(13,4-12) and also in the larger context of the Shechem council
(2 Chronicles 10).
A look at the Chronicler’s creative use of the word !b (6x in vv.
5-8) will help bring more clarity to the passage. Abijah’s affirmation
of God’s everlasting promise to David and his sons (wynb) to rule
over Israel in v. 5 would have provoked the question: how could
this be true if the northerners had already split off by Abijah’s time?
Abijah explains by discussing two sons in v. 6, where Jeroboam,
the son of Nebat (jbn-!b; not David), who was merely a servant
66
R.B. DILLARD, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX 1987) 107-108.
67
WILLIAMSON, Israel in Chronicles, 110.
68
WILLIAMSON, Israel in Chronicles, 112.