The Two Kingdoms
A kingdom divided
What happened after Solomon’s death is often referred to as ‘the division of the kingdom’. As a statement of fact, that is what happened: the extensive empire ruled over by Solomon was split into two. To a large extent, however, this split seems to have been the natural culmination of an ideological division that had existed for much longer. The northern tribes, led by Ephraim, and the southern tribes, led by Judah, had only ever been truly united by their common allegiance to David. Both groups looked on him as a leader following in the footsteps of the judges, whose position was therefore assured only because God had chosen and equipped him. His continued rule was valid only insofar as he lived up to the responsibility that was involved in such a lofty calling. Solomon had come to power in different circumstances altogether, and became king for no other reason than that David was his father. He was part of an established dynasty, and that factor in itself raised new questions about his relationship to the national self-understanding. The fact that Solomon had violated so many of the values associated with the Sinai covenant, together with the fact that he was not a northerner, helped considerably to revive deeply ingrained rivalries and suspicions between the two groups of tribes.
Back to the old ways
When the tribes in the north saw their chance to opt out of the vast bureaucratic state [centered on Jerusalem, they lost no time in choosing to do so. They were not motivated purely by political expediency, nor even primarily by a feeling of outrage at the injustices that Rehoboam promised to impose on them, though both of those considerations no doubt played a part. But over and above all this, the narratives reflect a deeply rooted desire to get back to the old ways, to retrace their national footsteps and go back to their traditional roots. As we have already seen, there is considerable debate about the extent to which different elements of the population had been a part of the actual events of the exodus from Egypt. But it is clear that, by now, significant numbers of people had adopted that story as their own, and wanted to see the values embedded in it being worked out in the realities of political life. Though there were many good economic and social reasons why Israel had become a state with a king, looking back it seemed as if the days of the judges had represented some kind of golden age when the tribes had at least made the effort to live with the spontaneous belief and action that had been enshrined within the covenant, even if they had not always carried it through to perfection. Of course, the changing political realities made it impossible just to turn the clock back and return to the way things had been in those early days. Then, the judges had been leaders of their own tribes, and it was exceptional for them to unite all the tribes. In the new climate, that was impractical, and whatever new leader might emerge needed to be a national figure. Equally, though, he must never succeed to the throne just because his father had been king before him. Every king must demonstrate that he had been called and equipped by God for the job at hand—and he would stay as king only for as long as he was seen to be carrying out God’s will among the people.
The divided kingdom.
This view was accepted in theory by the people of the southern state of Judah: they too believed that God should be the ultimate ruler of the nation. But the political context in which they found themselves had led to the emergence of a permanent royal family, and they were firmly convinced that God’s rule would now be exercised only through the royal house of David. The old ideals represented by the stories of the judges had found their fulfilment in the promise to David and his successors, and therefore it was both pointless and unnecessary to try to ascertain God’s direct will in each different generation. This view doubtless owed a great deal to the political—even geographical—situation of the southern kingdom, especially the position of its capital Jerusalem. For it is striking that once Omri, king of Israel, had founded his own royal capital in Samaria, the northern state too came to accept the concept of a royal family—first Omri’s own family, and later that of Jehu and his successors.
Drane, John William. Introducing the Old Testament. Completely rev. and updated. Oxford: Lion Publishing plc, 2000. Print.
Comments