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 521
THE DIVISION OF ISRAEL’S KINGDOM IN CHRONICLES 521
(db[) of Solomon, the son of David (dywd-!b), rebelled (drm) against
his master (i.e. Rehoboam). Though Japhet argues that the label
db[, which she translates “slave”, reflects poorly on Jeroboam, it
likely has the more neutral/positive nuance of “servant” as it is used
for Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11,26 (see also v. 13 and again 2 Chr 8,9) 69.
Additionally, scholars have also seen a criticism against Jeroboam
in the word drm, which can carry either a negative (e.g. 2 Kgs 24,1)
or a positive (e.g. 2 Kgs 18,7) connotation 70. Since Jeroboam had
all Israel on his side at this point, its use here must point to his jus-
tified rebellion in 2 Chr 10,2-3. In fact, the support of the people
makes him look more like a faithful leader than the true son of
David, Rehoboam.
Nevertheless, this understanding leaves another question: how
could a “son of Nebat”, a servant of the “son of David”, success-
fully rebel against the Davidic king? Abijah continues with two
more “sons” in v. 7, where he explains that certain “sons of worth-
lessness” (l[ylb ynb) prevailed over the “son of Solomon” when
the latter was young and tender-hearted. YHWH had entrusted his
kingdom to the Davidides as long as they remained faithful to him,
especially as it pertained to matters of the temple cult (cf. 1 Chr
28,9-10). Rehoboam, however, squandered this blessing when the
sons of worthlessness persuaded him to neglect one of the cult’s
most fundamental aspects (i.e. all Israel).
The Chronicler stresses Rehoboam’s missed opportunity with
his paradigmatic verb qzxth (“he could not strengthen himself be-
fore them”, v. 7). He frequently uses the term (qzx, hithpael) to
show how various kings have established their kingdom (1 Chr
11,10; 2 Chr 1,1; 13,21; 15,8; 17,1; 27,6; 32,5; see especially 16:9).
Rehoboam eventually did establish his kingdom according to 12,13,
but his rule extended only to Jerusalem. This reflects poorly on him
since he squandered the vast kingdom built by David and Solomon
(cf. 9,26). Hence, Abijah’s bold declarations on behalf of the Da-
vidic monarchy (13,5.8) affirm that he himself will not continue
Rehoboam’s course, but faithfully maintain YHWH’s cult established
by David and Solomon (vv. 10-12).
69
Cf. FRISCH, “Jeroboam and the Division of the Kingdom”, 16-17, 25.
70
JAPHET, I & II Chronicles, 691.